A Psalm for All Seasons: Studies in the Book of Psalms

1. The Significance of the Psalms

Introduction

The story has been told of two men who were the sole survivors of a shipwreck. They were afloat on a life raft and after several days had given up any hope of rescue. Finally, one said to the other, “Do you think it would do any good to pray?” The other agreed that nothing could be lost by trying. Neither, however, had ever prayed. Finally, one recalled living next door to a church as a child. He had often heard their mid-week meetings through an open window. Bowing his head he began to pray, repeating his recollection of the words he had heard uttered in that church so many years ago. His fervent prayer began, “I-26, B-15, N-7. …”

We may smile at the naivet of this man and at the fact that some churches know more about Bingo games than they do about Bible study or prayer. But before we begin to feel too smug allow me to suggest that many Protestant, evangelical churches are almost as ignorant when it comes to worship. For example, we call the 11:00 preaching hour the “worship hour.” Now while preaching should lead to worship, it often does not. When the preacher is through, he pronounces the benediction and the congregation gets up and leaves.

If there are any two areas in which the church of our Lord is deficient I believe that these would be in the areas of wisdom and worship. We have studied the Book of Proverbs in order to learn how we can become wise.1 I am turning now to the Book of Psalms because I desire that you and I may learn to be worshippers, men and women who, like David, seek after God and yearn to know the heart of God. The greatest calling of the church and of individual Christians is not to be evangelists or teachers or exhorters or comforters, but worshippers. The central focus of our lives should not be ourselves, or even others, but God (cf. John 4:20-24; Eph. 1:6, 12, 14; 3:21). The glory of heaven is not that it will be a happy place, but that we will see God in His fullness and we will fall before Him in worship and adoration.

And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crown before the throne, saying, “Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created” (Rev. 4:9-11).

My primary purpose in this study of the Psalms is to help each of us to gain a fuller appreciation for worship. In order to do this we must first come to appreciate the Psalms for the contribution they have made historically to the church and for what they can do in our lives. We must also approach the Psalms as a particular literary form, one we must become familiar with if we are to properly understand and apply the Psalms to our own lives. Then too, we must develop a particular methodology for our study to maximize its benefit to us. This is the purpose of our introductory lesson.

The Unique Contribution of the Psalms

Religious poetry was not unique to the Israelites of old. Archaeologists have found numerous “psalms” of worship which peoples of the Ancient Near East offered to pagan deities.

O Lord, decider of the destinies of heaven and earth, whose word no one alters,
Who controls water and fire, leader of living creatures, what god is like thee?

In heaven who is exalted? Thou! Thou alone art exalted.
On earth who is exalted? Thou! Thou alone art exalted.

Thou! When thy word is pronounced in heaven the Igigi prostrate themselves.
Thou! When thy word is pronounced on earth the Anunnaki kiss the ground.2

How manifold it is, what thou hast made!
They are hidden from the face (of man).
O sole god, like whom there is no other!
Thou didst create the world according to thy desire,
Whilst thou were alone:
All men, cattle, and wild beasts,
Whatever is on earth, going upon (its) feet,
And what is on high, flying with its wings.3

The first of these “psalms” is Assyrian, discovered by archaeologists in the ancient capital city of Nineveh, a hymn to the Moon-god, Sin. The second is an Egyptian hymn, sung to their sun god, Aton. In form, both of these hymns are strikingly similar to the Psalms of our Bible. Why, then, are the Psalms of the Bible so widely used in worship, while the others remain only the works of antiquity, studied for their archaeological value, rather than their religious contribution to men and women today? The answer to this question is found by considering the significance of the Psalms, both in biblical times and in the history of the church through the centuries.

The Psalms Are Prominent in the New Testament

Depending upon which scholar you consult, Psalms is one of the two Old Testament books most frequently quoted in the New.4 The other contender is the Book of Isaiah. Our Lord saw Himself as the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies and types of the Psalms.

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44).

In his debate with the Pharisees He cited Psalm 110 (Matt. 22:43-44) to show that David spoke of Him in the Psalms. The Savior also uttered the beginning words of Psalm 22 from the cross (Matt. 27:46).

In their preaching and writing, the apostles often quoted from the Psalms as biblical proof of the fact that Jesus was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. Peter quoted Psalm 16:8-11 as proof that Jesus must be raised from the dead (Acts 2:24-36). Paul’s message was virtually identical (cf. Acts 13:29-39). Any book so prominent in the minds of the New Testament writers should also be important to us.

The Psalms Have Had a Prominent Role in the History of the Church Through the Ages

According to Paul’s letter to Timothy the reading of Scripture was to play an important role in the assembled worship of the saints (1 Tim. 4:13). From 1 Corinthians 14:26, Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 we can safely infer that the singing of the Psalms was a vital part of the corporate worship experience of the church. While the translators have indicated a more general category by their rendering of the term “psalms” (rather than “Psalms”), I believe the Old Testament Psalms were certainly included in this broader category (a point I will attempt to clarify later in this lesson).

Not only did the church continue to sing the Psalms, the early fathers often chose to write commentaries on the Book of Psalms. Among these fathers were Chrysostom and Augustine.5 The church of the Reformation made much use of the Psalms and men like Luther were known for their love of this book.6 Leupold goes so far as to suggest, “Perhaps we are safe in saying that no biblical book has seen more use throughout Christendom than has the Psalter.”7

The Psalms Significantly Contribute to the Worship of the Church Today

Bernhard Anderson reminds us that in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, “especially where the ancient monastic usage is still preserved—the entire Psalter is recited once each week. In the Anglican church the Psalms are repeated once a month.”8 Our church hymnals are filled with the Psalms, either quoted or paraphrased. The Psalms have provided inspiration for many hymnists. Leupold says that the Service Book and Hymnal of the Lutheran Church (1958) “includes more than one hundred Psalms.”9 A look at our own church hymnal and songbook will confirm the fact that the Psalms significantly contribute to our worship in song.

There are several reasons why the Psalms have meant so much to the saints over the years. Let us take a few moments to consider these in order to stimulate our own desire to study the Psalms.

(1) The Psalms speak to us. We cannot read very far in the Psalms without drawing the conclusion that the psalmist seems to have been reading our mail. How is it that after centuries have passed we find a man who lived in a different time and culture expressing our innermost feelings, fears, and hopes? The answer, of course, is that we are reading the Scriptures, divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant, so as to be a word from God to us (cf. 1 Tim. 3:16,17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). Recognizing this, it was Luther who centuries ago said,

The Psalter is the favorite book of all the saints.… [Each person], whatever his circumstances may be, finds in [the book] psalms and words which are appropriate to the circumstances in which he finds himself and meet his needs as adequately as if they were composed exclusively for his sake, and in such a way that he himself could not improve on them nor find or desire any better psalms or words.10

In the Psalms the history of Israel is not only condensed (e.g., Ps. 78), but her theology is compressed. I once read an article with a title something like, “Israel’s Theology, Sung, not Said.” I think that is a correct assessment of the Book of Psalms in terms of its theology. Sabourin reminds us that the Psalter has been called “a microcosm of the whole Old Testament, … the epitome of Israel’s spiritual experience.”11

Bernhard Anderson suggests another reason why the Psalms speak to us.12 He reminds us that the Psalms were written at a point when Israel was between the initiation of God’s Kingdom and its culmination. Christians today live under similar circumstances. Our Lord has come to the earth as our Redeemer and Israel’s Messiah, but He has also returned to the Father to prepare a place for us (John 14:1-3). We are living in the interim, awaiting the culmination—the coming of God’s Kingdom, much like Israel of old. It is this anticipation and at the same time a sense of God’s absence (at times) which enables the saint of today to identify with the struggles of the saint of old and to find the Psalms striking a familiar chord in our own hearts and lives.

(2) The Psalms speak for us. It was Athanasius, an outstanding church leader in the fourth century, who reportedly declared “that the Psalms have a unique place in the Bible because most of the Scripture speaks to us, while the Psalms speak for us.”13

Our Lord expressed His grief at being separated from His Father on the cross by repeating the words of Psalm 22:1. Jonah’s “psalm” (Jonah 2:2-9), composed in the belly of the great fish, was an original work and yet his words and phrases were borrowed from the Book of Psalms.14 Countless Christians, down through the ages, have found the Psalms to speak for them and have prayed the words of a Psalm, finding them the best expression of their souls’ desires.

We know from Romans 8:26-27 that the Spirit of God speaks those things for us which are unutterable. Is it not possible that some of our unutterable feelings and desires may have been spoken by the psalmists under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I find that the psalmist has often put his finger on a problem I have grappled with and penned what I have not been able to put into words. Consequently, the Psalms not only speak to us, but for us. We can therefore sometimes pray in the words of the Psalms more effectively than in our own words. As Theodore Laetsch has said, “How many Christians have voiced their prayers in hours of extreme anguish by repeating familiar passages from Scripture or from their hymnbook!”15

It is here that I feel a personal sense of inadequacy for I have come out of a tradition which has little appreciation for what is often called “liturgy.” I have known nothing of prayer books or creeds. Frankly, I always felt that these were of little, if any, value. But it seems imperative that I acknowledge the Psalms to be the “Prayer Book of the people of God,”16 at least for Israel, and probably for New Testament saint as well. The Psalms are provided for the congregation of God’s people to sing or to say, to the praise and glory of God.

(3) The Psalms speak for us “out of the depths.” I am particularly indebted to Bernhard Anderson for this insight. He has entitled his excellent book on the Psalms, Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today. It is one thing to be able to praise God when we have, in our modern idiom, “had a nice day.” It is quite another to praise God when the bottom appears to have fallen out of life. If there is any time when men have turned to the Book of Psalms it is in their hour of deep despair and adversity.

No wonder the church fathers of the early centuries turned to the Psalms. And the Reformers did likewise. In the preface to his book, Bernhard Anderson reminds his readers that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed by the Nazi regime, was a man deeply influenced by the Psalms.17 His last publication before his death was The Prayer Book of the Bible: An Introduction to the Psalms (1940). On May 15th, 1943, he wrote these words: “I am reading the Psalms daily, as I have done for years. I know them and love them more than any other book in the Bible.”18

A friend who was with him in his last days said: “[Bonhoeffer] always seemed to me to diffuse an atmosphere of happiness, of joy in every smallest event in life, and of deep gratitude for the mere fact that he was alive.… He was one of the very few men that I have ever met to whom his God was real and close to him.”19

It was another Russian prison camp in the same war which produced yet another student of the Psalms. Claus Westermann, a scholar whose work has contributed greatly to the study of the Psalms, was imprisoned with a copy of Luther’s translation of the Psalms. During his confinement he turned his attention to the Psalms and his writings20 have benefited many students of these precious Scriptures.21

Since the Psalms speak for us “out of the depths” (this expression comes from the opening words of Psalm 130), we may find comfort, consolation, and the words to praise God in our darkest hours. This, incidentally, explains much of the reason why the Psalms are so neglected in preaching and worship in most American congregations. The truth is that we have had it too easy. We, like the Laodicean church of the Book of Revelation, have found Christianity comfortable and we have become complacent. It is when we are suffering and God seems strangely absent that our attention turns to this precious book. I pray that it will not take tragedy and trouble to motivate our study.

I might also add that it is noteworthy that virtually every Psalm which is attributed to David is a Psalm of lament. Most, if not all, of the Psalms of David were written in the days when he was fleeing from Saul, not when he was sitting on the throne of the nation. If anyone qualifies to praise God from “out of the depths” it was Jonah, for his psalm was composed from within the belly of that great fish which God had appointed to save him (cf. Jonah 2:1-9).

(4) The Psalms are not only a “Prayer Book” but a pattern for worship. Much of the value of the Psalms is that they speak to and for us. I believe this helps explain why Paul instructed the churches of the New Testament times regarding the sharing of psalms (1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). While I believe that much of the “psalming” which took place in the New Testament church involved reading from the Book of Psalms, I am inclined to think that when Paul spoke of a “psalm” he was also speaking of a particular form or pattern for participation, rather than referring only to the 150 psalms contained in the Book of Psalms.

If I understand the Psalms correctly they provide the saints with a pattern for participation in worship, as well as with a prayer book (the Old Testament psalms, which are read or repeated). In fact, the psalms of the Bible are not even confined to the Book of Psalms. The worship of individuals and of congregations often employed psalms. For example, the Israelites sang a song (a psalm) of praise to God after passing through the Red Sea at the Exodus (Ex. 15:1-18). In Deuteronomy 32 Moses composed a psalm contrasting God’s faithfulness with Israel’s unfaithfulness. Deborah composed a song of praise after God rescued His people (Jud. 5:1-31). Hannah sang a psalm of praise to God for the gift of her son, Samuel (1 Sam. 2:1-10).

Not all the psalms of the Old Testament were psalms of praise and thanksgiving. Many were psalms of lament. There are psalms of lament in the Book of Job (e.g., 3:3-12, 13-19, 20-26; 7:1-10; 10:1-22). The books of Jeremiah (e.g., 15:15-18; 17:14-18) and Lamentations (e.g., chaps. 3; 5) contain numerous laments.22

This leads me to the conclusion that the Psalms provide us not only with a passage to ponder and to pray, but also with a pattern for our prayer and worship. Martin Luther found the Psalms to be a school of prayer: “The Christian can learn to pray in the psalter, for here he can hear how the saints talk with God. The number of moods which are expressed here, joy and suffering, hope and care, make it possible for every Christian to find himself in it, and to pray with the psalms.”23 If the Psalms are a pattern for our worship, our prayer, and our praise, then it is my hope that our study of the Psalms will make of us better worshippers, more skillful and faithful than we have ever been before in prayer and in praise.

Conclusion

The psalmist pictures God as enthroned upon the praises of His people:

O my God, I cry by day, but Thou dost not answer;
And by night, but I have no rest.
Yet Thou art holy,
O Thou who art enthroned upon the praises of Israel (Ps. 22:2-3).

My friend, if God were enthroned upon your praises, how glorious would that throne be? If God were to be seen enthroned upon the praises of our church, how glorious would He appear to men?

I am coming to the conclusion that not only is worship more important than evangelism, fellowship, edification, discipleship or church planting, but it is really the means to these things. Our fellowship is best focused on the Lord’s Table (cf. Acts 2:42), rather than around the coffee table or the television set. Evangelism is the outworking and the effect of worship. Observing the Lord’s Table is said to be a proclamation of our Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:26). When the Philippian jailer fell before Paul and Silas and asked the question, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved” (Acts 16:30), it was because these saints had responded to their persecution with praise and worship: “But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them” (Acts 16:25).

The most convincing witness men will ever observe is the worship of the saints. In the Old Testament the patriarchs proclaimed their faith to the heathen by building an altar and “calling on the name of the Lord” (e.g., Gen. 12:8; 13:4; 21:33), an expression which combines the worship of the saint with his witness.

It is my hope that you will acknowledge that worship is a dimension in your life which is of the highest priority and much in need of improvement. I pray that you will see that the Book of Psalms can do much to improve your worship as you study it and make it a part of your devotional life.

I sincerely desire that this message will help you to have a sense of history as you hold the Bible (and especially the Book of Psalms) in your hands. The Psalms which you have before you greatly influenced the thinking of the apostles and the worship of the early church. The Psalms have been found worthy of the study and devotion of the greatest men of the centuries, and have brought comfort to those who have suffered for their faith. Any book so revered and read for centuries is worthy of your study.

Because of this, I challenge you to make a serious commitment as we begin our study of the Psalms. I do not urge you to make it casually or quickly. I encourage you to ponder it, for it is a vow, and vows should not be taken lightly (cf. Ps. 56:12; Prov. 20:25). But after due deliberation, if worship is as important as the Bible says it is then I would urge you to make a commitment before God to faithfully study the Psalms for your own personal growth as a child of God. If I have urged you to be wise through our previous study of the Book of Proverbs, I now exhort you to be like David, a man (or woman) after the heart of God. Such a course is not easy but, as our study of Psalm 1 and Psalm 119 will indicate, it is clear.

If you have never become a child of God through faith in Christ, I urge you to acknowledge your sin, to trust fully and finally in the work of Christ on the cross of Calvary and to thus be born again. You cannot worship God except through the Lord Jesus Christ:

Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. You worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit; and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He” (John 4:21-26).

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6).

God only accepts worship through the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. If you would worship God, it must be through Christ. Those who will not fall before our Lord in faith and adoration now must ultimately do so as His conquered enemies:

Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9-11).

1 The relationship between Psalms and Proverbs can perhaps best be grasped in terms of the difference between David and Solomon. Solomon was, as we know, given more wisdom than any man who had ever lived (1 Kings 3:12). If Solomon was known for his wisdom, some of which is recorded in the Book of Proverbs, David was known for his heart for God (1 Sam. 13:14), which is reflected in the Psalms. It was, in fact, the whole-heartedness of David in seeking and serving God which distinguished him above his son Solomon (1 Kings 11:4).

2 A portion of the “Hymn to the Moon-God,” translated by Ferris J. Stephens, in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), pp. 385f., as quoted by Bernhard Anderson, Out of the Depths (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974), p. 27.

3 “Hymn to the Aton,” translated by John A. Wilson, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 369-73, as quoted by Bernhard Anderson, p. 29.

4 “It is of special interest to Christians that the New Testament quotes more liberally from the Psalter than from any other Old Testament book. Kirkpatrick claims there are 93 such quotations; Delitzsch, 70. The difference in number is obviously due to the fact that it is difficult to determine whether certain statements or phrases merit the designation of a quotation.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969 [reprint]), pp. 4-5.

2. What Is a Psalm?

Introduction

Jim Dunham, from the Flying W Ranch, tells a story which illustrates the need for this lesson. Jim is a Christian gunslinger and fast-draw artist who has taught many western movie stars to handle a gun. When he got married he decided to teach his wife to handle a gun. To his delight she became amazingly accurate. One day he took her deer hunting. He positioned her in a good spot, told her he would be nearby, and instructed her to shoot her rifle twice into the air if she got into any trouble. A little later, he heard one shot fired from his wife’s direction. Assuming she had either shot a deer or gotten into trouble and forgotten to fire a second shot, Jim went to look for her. When he came upon her, she was holding a man at gun point. Jim said he overheard the man saying, “All right lady, the deer is yours, but first let me get my saddle off him.”

It is important for a deer hunter not only to be able to shoot straight but to know the difference between a deer and a horse. It is also crucial for a student of the Scriptures to know the difference between poetry and prose. When we read in the early chapters of Genesis that God created Adam and Eve, we read it as history, and we believe this man and woman to be historical persons, just as the New Testament indicates our Lord and the apostles did (cf. Matt. 19:4-6; 1 Cor. 15:45). However, when we read in the Psalms that David made his bed swim and he dissolved his couch with his tears (Ps. 6:6) we do not take his words literally; but we should accept the truth behind the figurative expression, that he was so overcome with sorrow he cried constantly. When we read in Psalms that the rivers clap their hands and the mountains sing for joy (Ps. 98:8), we interpret these words in light of the fact that we are dealing with poetry and not prose.

In Reflections on the Psalms, C. S. Lewis emphasized the importance of studying the Psalms as poetry, with its unique forms and characteristics. He wrote:

What must be said … is that the Psalms are poems, and poems intended to be sung: not doctrinal treatises, nor even sermons. … Most emphatically the Psalms must be read as poems; as lyrics, with all the licenses and all the formalities, the hyperboles, the emotional rather than logical connections, which are proper to lyric poetry. They must be read as poems if they are to be understood; no less than French must be read as French or English as English. Otherwise we shall miss what is in them and think we see what is not.24

This is not only true with biblical literature; it is true of all literature. When a literary work begins, “Once upon a time …” and ends, “and they lived happily ever after,” we don’t expect to take anything literally. Every literary work must be interpreted in view of its literary form.

The Old Testament Psalms are not just poetry; they are Hebrew poetry. It has a unique style and structure of its own, very different from the poetry of our time. While there are various types of Psalms in the Psalter and great diversity among the Psalms, all have several characteristics in common. The purpose of this message is to consider these common characteristics in order to prepare us for a more detailed study of particular Psalms in future lessons.

The Characteristics of the Psalms

A Psalm Is a Poem

Poetry is not particularly popular these days. Consequently, for many of us the fact that the Psalms are poems may be something we need to overcome, rather than an incentive to study. How many of you, for example, have penned or pondered a poem in the last month?

As a college student I had a literature course in which I was supposed to read certain works of T. S. Eliot. I found the particular selections that were assigned to be obnoxious and offensive. In addition, they just didn’t seem to make any sense (I now realize that probably says much more about me than about T. S. Eliot). Naturally, when final exam time came the teacher would have the major essay question on Eliot. The question was, “Evaluate the works of T. S. Eliot.” My answer was quite to the point: “He is terrible. I wouldn’t waste the time to read him.” As you may have guessed, I didn’t set the academic world on fire in that class!

Until recently one would hardly have realized that the Psalms are poems. This is due in part to the fact that the translators of the King James Version of the Bible overlooked the poetic structure of the Psalms (as well as other poetic portions of the Old Testament). If you have a copy of the King James Version handy, look for a moment at the Psalms. Do you see that the printing format is virtually identical to that of the Book of Genesis? Who would have thought that he was reading poetry in Psalms from the form in which they were printed in this most revered version of the Bible?

We should not be too hard on the translators of the KJV, however, for Hebrew poetry is much different than the poetry we know today. When I think of poetry I think of such lofty works as,

Mary had a little lamb,Its fleece was white as snow.And everywhere that Mary went,The lamb was sure to go.

A flea and a fly in a flue Were imprisoned so what could they do?Said the flea, “Let us fly!”Said the fly, “Let us flee!”So they flew through a flaw in the flue.

The poetry with which we are most familiar is based on rhyme and rhythm. Hebrew poetry is very different—so different that the translators of the King James Version possibly did not recognize it as such.

More than one hundred years after the KJV was published Bishop Robert Lowth rediscovered the genius of Hebrew poetry.26 In Hebrew poetry it is not the rhyming nor the rhythm of the words, but the relationship of two lines (most often) of poetry which is the heart of the poetic style. This relationship is most frequently referred to as parallelism, although stereo vision and stereo sound have been used as illustrative analogies.27 By the use of various types of parallelism the first line of poetry is expanded upon in the second, either by clarification, completion, or contrast. (See Addendum at the end of this lesson for a summarization of the major types of parallelism.)

Since the Psalms are poetry, we should not approach them in the same way we would prose. We must expect figures of speech, for example, and interpret expressions in the Psalms in the light of their literary use. In Psalm 1 the godly are likened (a simile) to a tree planted by streams of water, while the wicked are described as chaff (vv. 3-4). In Psalm 23 the Lord is portrayed as a shepherd, caring for us as His sheep (a metaphor). These poetic images and devices stimulate meditation and encourage the reader to probe the meaning of the passage.

At this point I do not wish to dwell on the details of Hebrew poetic style as much as I desire to describe the blessing the Psalms can be to us as poetry. In the first place, poetry is much more vivid, catching our attention and stimulating our thought. It is somewhat like listening to “The Shadow” on the radio. Enough is said to stimulate the imagination, but much is left for us to fill in. The excitement is often experienced by what the reader himself supplies, what he or she brings to the passage and takes from it. Poetry is therefore a more intense form of communication.

Poetry is a special use of language. Perrine remarks that “poetry might be defined as a kind of language that says more and says it more intensely than does ordinary language.” Poetry is not designed basically to communicate information. … Poetry is the language of experience. It is powerful in its communicative ability.28

It is not just the style of poetry which makes it more meaningful to the reader; it is also the sacrifice which poetry demands of the author. Good poetry, like anything else of quality, does not come easily. Any who have tried their hand at poetry know how true this is. Poetry should mean more to the reader, knowing that the writer has spent considerable effort in the expression of his thoughts.

In recent years my father began writing a poem to each member of our family on their birthdays. Now I know that the Hallmark people have merchandised their cards with the slogan: “For those who care enough to send the very best.” All such a card really indicates is that we cared enough to go to a corner drug store and spend a dollar, but a poem from my father shows that he cared enough to spend hours of his time to express his love. Since the Psalms are poems addressed primarily to God, He, I believe, delights in the sacrifice involved in the composition and expression of our adoration and praise. As David said in another (but not unrelated) context: “No, I insist on paying the full price. I will not take for the Lord what is yours, or sacrifice a burnt offering that costs me nothing” (1 Chron. 21:24 NIV).

The Hebrew psalm is especially significant because, in the providence of God, it is the most universal form of poetry. Can you imagine trying to translate a poem like “Mary Had a Little Lamb” into another language and thought patterns of another culture thousands of years removed? A word-for-word translation is virtually impossible, let alone to find words which would rhyme. In French, for example, a “headache” is to “have a bad head.” To “look good” in French, as I remember it (high school was a long time ago), is translated “to carry yourself well.” Yet in spite of the great difficulties translators would find putting our modern poems into another language, translation has almost no adverse effect on Hebrew poetry because rhyme and rhythm are not prominent features. As Derek Kidner has observed:

It is the striking fact that this type of poetry loses less than perhaps any other in the process of translation. In many literatures the appeal of a poem lies chiefly in verbal felicities and associations, or in metrical subtleties, which tend to fail of their effect even in a related language. … But the poetry of the Psalms has a broad simplicity of rhythm and imagery which survives transplanting into almost any soil. Above all, the fact that its parallelisms are those of sense rather than of sound allows it to reproduce its chief effects with very little loss of either force or beauty. It is well fitted by God’s providence to invite ‘all the earth’ to ‘sing the glory of his name.’29

A Psalm Is a Song

If a Psalm is a poem, it is also a song. The Book of Psalms, while it is many things, is a hymnal. The various titles of the Book of Psalms are one indication of the role of the book as a hymnal. In the Hebrew Bible the title of the Psalms is Tehillim, which means “songs of praise.”30 In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, the term Psalmoi is employed. The verb form of this Greek word originally referred to the plucking of strings with the fingers. Eventually, Psalmoi came to mean “sacred songs sung to musical accompaniment.”31

In addition to the titles used for the Book of Psalms there are numerous musical terms in the book which indicate that the Psalms were written to be sung. The words “psalm” (Heb. mizmor, used 57 times) and “song” (Heb. sir, found in the heading of 30 Psalms, frequently with mizmor) are both musical terms.32 In 55 Psalms there is a reference to the “choir director.”33 Various musical instruments are mentioned in the Psalms, both stringed (e.g. Pss. 4,6,54,55), wind instruments, such as the flute (Ps. 5), and perhaps the harp (Pss. 8,81,84).34 Some of the musical terms in the superscriptions are difficult to interpret. These terms may be instructions to the various sections of the choir, such as the sopranos and the basses.35 In Psalms 45 and 69 it is possible, if not probable, that the reference to “the Lilies” is the name of a well-known tune, to which the words of the song were to be sung (cf. the superscription in the NIV).

The New Testament confirms what we have already observed from the Old in that the references to “psalms” in 1 Corinthians 14:26, Ephesians 5:19, and Colossians 3:16 are each time found in the immediate context of music. We must, therefore, conclude with Bernhard Anderson that the Psalms are songs:

Yet in a larger sense it is appropriate that the title “songs of praise” [tehillim] was finally applied to the Psalter as a whole, which includes a variety of types of psalms: hymns, laments, thanksgivings, songs of trust, wisdom meditations, and others. For the truth is that every psalm, whatever its literary type and whatever its relation to the cult, is actually a song which extols and glorifies God.36

The fact that the Psalms are songs should serve as proof of the important role which music has to play in our spiritual lives and particularly in our worship. This was very clear to Martin Luther, who is quoted as saying: “He who despises music … does not please me. Music is a gift of God, not a gift of men. … After theology I accord to music the highest place and the greatest honor.”37

I personally believe that many of us in Protestant, evangelical churches have failed to grasp the significant contribution of music to our worship, something which is not only inconsistent with the Psalms, but which flies in the face both of the Old and New Testament Scriptures.

It is obvious to anyone that while the words of the Psalms remain, the notes do not. I disagree with Ronald Allen, however, in what he seems to conclude from this: “The fact that the Psalms are music without the notes, however, means that for practical purposes the Psalms are poems. The tunes are lost to us, but the lyrics are what God has preserved.”38

Why has God preserved so many indications of the musical character of the Psalms if this has no relevance to us today? And why have the saints down through the ages composed music by which the Psalms have been sung? I believe that God’s providential hand is once again to be seen. You see, music is woven into the culture of our times. Have you ever listened to a foreign student playing a tape recording of his native music? Have you really enjoyed or appreciated it as much as he? Even in our own culture and within our own church there are cultural differences which are expressed by different musical preferences and tastes. Some like “high church” music while others are into “folk” music. I believe that God kept men from preserving the original musical notes of the Psalms because this would enable, indeed, it would cause, each culture down through the ages to compose its own music. In the composition of musical accompaniment to the Psalms, many have come to know them much more intimately than they would have, had the musical score been preserved.

We can see the hand of God in the preservation of the Psalms as a universal form of poetry, and in the providential “loss” of the musical score. The words have been given us, but the music is ours to compose. Each generation and each culture must come to the Psalms and compose afresh the musical forms which best facilitate worship and praise. If poetical form engages our creativity and meditation in the interpretation of the Psalms, the musical character of the Psalms (yet without the notes) excites and enhances our creativity in the expression of our worship through the Psalms as music.

A Psalm Is an Expression of Worship

Perhaps no one word better summarizes what the Psalms are about than the word “worship.” Even though the term “worship” is not frequently employed in Psalms, there are a number of Hebrew words in the Psalms which point in that direction.39 Let us consider some of the facets of worship contained in the Psalms.

The Psalms are man’s response to God. I am indebted to Ronald Allen for a very helpful three-fold distinction he has made in the Old Testament Scriptures, one which he warns us not to carry too far.40 Nevertheless, Allen suggests three words which help us classify the Old Testament Scriptures: revelation, reflection, and response. The historical books (such as the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible) and the prophets are best characterized by the word “revelation,” not that all of the Bible isn’t revelation, but that the primary function of these books is revelation. The wisdom books, and especially Proverbs, would best be characterized as “reflection,” for the contribution of these books has to do with the reflection of the writers on what has been revealed. The Book of Psalms, Allen, says, is best described as “response.”

Bernhard Anderson stresses this element of response: “For the Bible as a whole is not only the story of God’s dealings with his people but also the witness of his people’s response in thanksgiving and adoration, in lament and petition along the way of its pilgrimage through history.”41

Since the saints respond differently to God’s activity (or perceived inactivity), the whole spectrum of man’s response can be found in the Psalms.42 “In the Psalter, one finds psalms expressive of the gamut of human emotions. Some ring with the exuberant thrill of praise; others reverberate with the throes of human desperation. The heights and the depths of human life resound through its poetry.”43

Some of the responses of the psalmists do not seem to be a model for us, even if they mirror our own inclinations and actions. Allen helps us see that while the Book of Psalms reflects the full range of responses man may have toward God in the light of his circumstances, not all of these are necessarily based on an accurate estimation of the situation, especially when the psalmist complains to God.

We would be greatly mistaken if we regarded these statements as revelation in the strictest sense of that term. For in these Psalms the initial complaint is proven to be wrong. … Nevertheless, these complaints are inspired by God, for in the language of response they truly reflect the troubles of God’s people living in a difficult world. These are expressions of how they—and we!—sometimes feel. These are real to them, and they may be real to us as well. God uses these expressions of doubt and despair to magnify His name as He leads the troubled believer to a new sense of confidence in His matchless character.44

The Worship Which the Psalms Facilitate Is More Public Than Private

While many maintain that they wish to worship God privately and in their own way, the Psalms were compiled primarily for use in public worship, not private. To use a modern illustration, one may take home a hymnal (which also contains responsive readings) to use in their private devotions, but the principal purpose of that hymnal is for corporate singing and responsive reading by the congregation. The experience which prompted the composition of a Psalm may have been personal and private, but the Psalm was included in the Psalter for corporate praise and worship. Worship in the Psalms should always be meaningful to the individual, but it is assumed to be public in nature.

The Psalms of the Bible are not individualistic poems such as a modern person might compose to express his own thoughts and feelings. Of course, according to the Bible the individual is infinitely important in God’s sight. A psalmist, looking up at the starry skies, marvels that the God who holds the cosmos within his creative grasp actually visits and cares for man and, moreover, invests him with the noble responsibility of being his representative who exercises dominion over the earth (Ps. 8:3-8). Yet the individual finds himself in the community which God has called into being. Within that community he has access to God in worship; he joins with the community in responding in praise to God’s actions; and he participates in the great historical pilgrimage of the People of God.45

All of the Hebrew terms for praise … have about them a public and vocal nature. In contrast then, thanksgiving may be silent and private; praise is vocal and public. But both must be intense and genuine.46

Because praise in the Psalms is public and corporate, the author becomes almost anonymous:

[The psalmist] is not concerned to tell us about the details of his life or to disclose his own inner experiences. As an individual he recedes into anonymity. … Language is used poetically in order to portray experiences which are typical of all men, despite the variations which are as many as there are human beings.47

Here is an area where many of us could use some instruction. Our intentions may be good when we stand to lead the congregation in worship, but all too often we find the spotlight shifting to us and our experience, and not on God and His goodness and grace. We need to become much less conscious of ourselves, and even of others, and more conscious of God, who is the object and the audience of our worship.

The Psalms Are Prayers

The doxology of Book II of the Psalms concludes with these words: “The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended” (Ps. 72:20). This indicates that the author of this verse (who was likely the compiler of this book of the Psalms) viewed the Psalms as prayers. When the author of each Psalm composed his work he did so as to God. When the congregation of the Israelites sang, repeated, or prayed the Psalms, they did so to God, and, in the broadest sense, they prayed. If prayer is more than petition (which it should be), then it is not difficult to see how the Psalms could be regarded as prayers. Westermann says of the Psalms:

They are prayers (words directed to God in petition or praise), poetry (poetically formulated language), and song (they go beyond the mere speaking or even recital of a poem and become music).48

Some Christians make a habit of praying the Psalms as a part of their devotional life. This was a common practice of the early Christians; it could be a beneficial spiritual exercise for all of us as well.

The Psalms Are Praise

Westermann draws our attention to this significant fact: “In our modern languages there are whole lists of words for which there is, in Hebrew for example, no single corresponding word (for example, “modest”). And among these is ‘to thank.’”49 Westermann feels that the significance of this fact has never been properly evaluated.50 He goes on to show that there is a great deal of difference between “thanks” and “praise,” which I have summarized below:

Praise elevates the one praised, while thanks does not.

The one who praises is preoccupied with the one praised; the one who thanks is not.

Ron Allen surveys the various Hebrew words that refer to the activity of praise in the Old Testament.52 These words perhaps best summarize what, to him, is the primary activity which occurs in the Psalms—praise.

This is the wonder of praise. True praise elevates God, not the speaker. True praise magnifies God in the community, not just in the thoughts of the one speaking. Praise is constructive worship. It should be a part of everyday living. Praise is a matter of life and breath. As long as the believer has life and breath, praise is due from his lips to our incomparable God.53

Praise is not merely the predominant theme of the Psalms, it is the keynote of the Scriptures. In the introduction to his book, Old Testament Theology, L. Kohler says: “The deeper one descends through the centuries into the breadth of the Old Testament writings, the louder the praise and laud of God can be heard. But they are not lacking even in the oldest pages, and each act of praise is a confession of the ever-present sentence—that God is.”54

Conclusion

As we conclude this message I would like to focus our attention on three critical areas of deficiency in our worship which the Book of Psalms challenges us to correct.

(1) Experience. We tend to minimize our experience. We say, for example, “Don’t base your theology on your experience.” This, of course, is good advice, but we take it too far. We often fail to see God in our experience. When things are going well, we are inclined to believe that it is because of our diligence, skills, and superior intelligence. When things go badly, we feel it is because we have done something wrong. In either case, we do not see God in our everyday experiences.

One of the things which set Israel’s worship apart from the heathen of their time was that they were very much aware of God’s hand in history.

Accordingly, the faith of the psalmists does not rest upon glittering generalities about the nature of God or upon a numinous awareness of his majesty in the remote reaches of the universe; rather, it is founded upon the good news that God makes himself present in the midst of history to help his people.55

This also helps explain the laments of the Psalms, for the psalmist is confident of God’s hand in history, yet perplexed at His apparent absence, or at least His failure to act.

I would suggest that we need to have a renewed awareness of God’s intimate involvement in the affairs of men, not only in times of blessing, but also in adversity. No wonder some theologians of recent days have concluded that God is dead. For all practical purposes our worship (or its absence) would seem to betray our acknowledgment that He has passed from the scene of our history.

(2) Expression. Not only have we failed to appreciate God’s activity in our lives, we have done a pathetic job of expressing our praise and worship. The more I study the Psalms the more I recognize the skill and effort the psalmists put into expressing their worship. Today, our adoration of God is cheap and unbecoming. We use trite phrases, which require no thought and almost no effort to utter. I have been in audiences where we show our adoration by “giving God a big round of applause.” How cheap! Is the God of glory not due a great effort on our part? Our expressions of worship fall far short of the standard which is set before us in the Psalms. If we can do no better, let us at least worship Him in the words of the Psalms. But better still, let us compose our own hymns and music to glorify the Almighty God.

(3) Emotion. Ponder the fact that Israel’s worship in the Psalms took the form of poetry and music. What contribution is made by these two forms? May I suggest that both poetry and music touch the heart. Much of Christianity, in my opinion, has become so intellectualized that our emotions have all but been placed on the shelf. Perhaps we have arrived at this out of overreaction to the emotional excesses of some of our brethren, but what are we to say about the worship we witness in the Psalms? If we are to worship the Lord our God with our whole being, as the Scriptures command (Deut. 6:5; Mark 12:30), then perhaps it is time for us to employ our emotions in worship, as well as our intellect.

While those of us who are truly saved may find ourselves deficient in these three areas, others might find themselves virtually dead if their spiritual life was to be measured by their response to God in these terms. You may profess some kind of relationship with God, but do you find Him consistently active in the world and especially in your life? Could your “god” actually be dead, without you knowing it? Then perhaps it is you, and not God, who is dead.

Then again, you may say that you know God and serve Him, but in what ways have you expressed this? Do you regularly read His Word, the Bible? Do you pray in any words which come genuinely from your own heart, or do you merely rattle off the forms which you have learned. Do you really communicate with God or just recite words? If God were your spouse, would He be content with the quality of your communication?

Finally, how has your profession of faith touched your heart? Does the presence of sin in the world cause you grief? Do you shed tears when you pray? What real emotion is conveyed in your religious activities?

If you see no reality or vitality in these three areas, my friend—your experience with God, your expressions to Him, or your heart toward Him—I must suggest to you that your “faith” may be dead and not living, a profession but not a possession. If such is the case, I urge you to come into a personal, vital relationship with God through His Son, Jesus Christ. All you must do is acknowledge that you are a sinner, spiritually dead and deserving of God’s wrath. Trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as God’s sinless Son who died on the cross to bear your punishment and to give you eternal life. It is then that you will have a personal faith and worship God in spirit and truth (cf. John 4:24).

Addendum

Below I have summarized the major types of parallelism, following the description of Ron Allen:

Synonymous parallelism: the first line is echoed in the second, with only a slight change of terms:

Why do the nations rageand the peoples plot in vain? (Ps. 2:1; cf. also 3:1).

Antithetical parallelism: the words of the first line are affirmed in the second, not by repetition, but by contrast:

For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish (Ps. 1:6; cf. 40:4).

Climactic parallelism: the second line refines, develops and completes the thought of the first:

Ascribe to the Lord, O families of nations, ascribe to the Lord glory and strength (Ps. 96:7).

Synthetic parallelism: the second line develops the thought of the first, but without quoting words from the first line (as does climactic parallelism):

Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker (Ps. 95:6).

Emblematic parallelism: the first line introduces a figure of speech which is explained in the second:

As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God (Ps. 42:1).

Formal relationship (parallelism): the first and second lines have only a formal, structural relationship—more a relationship of proximity (neighbors, so to speak), than of logic or sequence of thought:

3. Psalm 1

Introduction

Never before in history has so much biblical scholarship been available to Christians. In days gone by (and in some lands today), merely to possess a copy of the Bible in your native tongue was considered a rare privilege. Now we have more than a dozen translations and paraphrases at our fingertips. While there usually have been scholarly works available to advanced students of Scriptures, now the shelves of Christian bookstores are unable to keep up with the flood of books that are coming on the market, targeted at the “non-professional” Christian. The Bible is even available on cassette and on computer as well!

In spite of these marvelous aids to Bible study, I seriously doubt that the average Christian is much of a student of the Scriptures. It would seem that saints of earlier periods in the history of the church were better versed in Scripture than we are. A part of the reason may be that good preaching is so readily available, both on radio and television, on the printed page, and by means of audio and video recordings. Perhaps Christians have concluded that a personal study of the Bible is unnecessary because we have professionals who can do the work for us and share the “cream” of their study with us, saving us the effort.

More than anything else, however, I am convinced that the reason why you and I are such poor students of Scripture is that we are not convinced of the value of personal Bible study. This study should remove all doubt as to the value of personal Bible study. Since Psalm 1 (the first Psalm of the Psalter) and Psalm 119 (the longest) both exhort the reader to become a student of Scripture, this must be a matter of high priority. What more appropriate way to begin a study of the Psalms than to consider the importance of such a study, not just from the pulpit, but from our personal time in the Word of God throughout the week.

Preliminary Remarks

Having just completed a study in the Book of Proverbs, we can easily see that Psalm 1 is remarkably similar to Proverbs in form and content. As Perowne has observed, “In form it is little more than the expansion of a proverb.”57 We find in this Psalm the “two ways” which are so prominent in Proverbs. The similarity of this Psalm to the book of Proverbs marks it out as one of several unique Psalms which have been classified as “wisdom Psalms.”58 Here, the psalmist is not addressing God as much as he is men, yet in God’s presence. This Psalm is not strictly a prayer, nor would it be quickly identified as worship. Yet, as an introduction to the Psalter, it addresses several areas which are prerequisites to worship and prayer.

As introductory Psalms, both Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 are somewhat unique when compared to the others which make up Book I of the Psalms (Pss. 1–41) because they contain no superscription and David is not identified in either psalm as the author.59 Because of the similarity of the first Psalm to Proverbs, some have suggested that it may have been Solomon who wrote it, placing it before his father’s Psalm (Psalm 2) as an introduction to the entire Psalter.60 It would not be unusual for a son to gather the writings of his father, nor would he necessarily be inclined to give his own name as a superscription.

The structure of Psalm 1 is straightforward. The entire Psalm extols the blessedness of one who avoids the path of the wicked and walks in the way of wisdom and life. Verses 1-3 describe the way of the righteous, first in negative terms (v. 1), and then in a positive dimension (v. 2), and finally the blessings alluded to in verse 1 are described through the imagery of a tree planted beside an abundant supply of water (v. 3). In contrast, verses 4 and 5 describe the wicked, who are likened to chaff (v. 4), and who are destined for judgment (v. 5). Verse 6 is a summary and conclusion, explaining the reason for the blessings of the righteous and the destruction of the wicked.

The Way of the Righteous (1:1-3)

1 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers. (NIV)

The way of the righteous is depicted in verses 1-3, in terms of what it prohibits (v. 1), what it promotes (v. 2), and what it promises (v. 3). From the perspective of the righteous man these three verses describe his peril (v. 1), his priorities (v. 2), and his prosperity (v. 3). Let us consider each of these elements more carefully.

The Perils to Shun (v. 1)

The psalm begins by describing the way of the righteous in terms of three things which the godly will avoid. As I currently understand them, they build to a climax, showing a kind of backward progression, as the words walk, stand, and sit suggest.61

First, we are told that the man who is blessed of God does not “walk in the counsel of the wicked” (NIV). Counsel may not be the most desirable rendering here, for it generally brings to mind what would be more in the line of “advice.” “Counsel” (Hebrew, `etsah) can mean specific advice (1 Kings 12:8, 13), or, more broadly, a plan (Ex. 18:19), but here it seems to refer to the principles which determine one’s actions.62 If this is the case, the godly will not only reject the advice of the wicked, but they will also avoid the philosophical and moral principles which lead to such conclusions. In other words, the godly will not adopt a humanistic world view which is the source of ungodly actions.

Let me attempt to illustrate this. Humanism has manifested itself in a philosophy known as “situation ethics,” which was popularized by Joseph Fletcher. This point of view has become an intellectual and moral foundation for a great variety of moral evils. To mention but one, situation ethics holds that it is possible, in certain situations, for a man or woman to commit adultery and be right in so doing. The humanistic philosophy of situation ethics condones and sometimes even “sanctifies” sin.

Second, the righteous do not “stand in the way of sinners” (NIV). If the “counsel” of the wicked is a humanistic view of life, the “way of sinners” is a worldly lifestyle. In the first instance our attention is drawn to the principles by which wicked men live; in the second, we take note of the practices which stem from worldly principles. If we should not think the way the wicked do, neither should we act as they do. The term “way” occurs frequently in both Psalms and Proverbs, and often it is a reference to a man’s characteristic lifestyle, his habitual, predictable, pattern of behaving. The term “walk” has a similar connotation. So the righteous is not to walk in the way of the wicked. Our lifestyle must not imitate that of the wicked.

Third, the righteous do not “sit in the seat of mockers” (NIV). I understand the “seat of scoffers” (NASB) to be a reference to a forbidden fellowship with those who have rejected God.63 The word “seat” is one which can refer to an assembly.64 I personally believe that the “assembly” which is forbidden the righteous in verse 1 is the counterpart of the “assembly” of the righteous in verse 5, from which the wicked are excluded. The righteous refuse to fellowship with fools who are hardened in their unbelief and who can only be known as “mockers.”

Kidner concisely summarizes the force of verse one when he writes, “Counsel, way and seat (or ‘assembly,’ or ‘dwelling’) draw attention to the realms of thinking, behaving and belonging, in which a person’s fundamental choice of allegiance is made and carried through.”65 I believe the progression in these three areas of believing, behaving, and belonging, can be illustrated in the Book of 1 Corinthians. The Corinthian church was far from spiritually mature. When Paul sought to correct the evils in this church which had been reported to him (1:11-12), he first dealt with the errors in their thinking. The first three chapters of 1 Corinthians concern the vast difference between merely human wisdom and the wisdom of God. The Corinthians were guilty of worldly reasoning, rather than using godly wisdom. The wisdom of the apostles was the wisdom of God and totally different from worldly wisdom (2:1-9). The wisdom of God can only be known through revelation (2:10) and can only be understood through the ministry of the indwelling Holy Spirit (2:11-16).

From the belief of the Corinthians, Paul moved to their behavior. He censored the man who was living with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5:1-5), and he challenged the practice of those who were taking fellow-Christians to court (1 Cor. 6:1-11). The subjects of marriage and divorce are dealt with in chapter 7. Then, in chapters 10 and 11, Paul comes to the topic of belonging. Some of the Corinthians had no qualms about joining a neighbor in a meal which involved idolatrous sacrifices and a kind of counterfeit communion. This kind of fellowship was forbidden (1 Cor. 10:14-22). It is little wonder that in their own assembling (chaps. 11–14) there were gross improprieties, to the degree that divine discipline had been meted out, even resulting in the death of some (1 Cor. 11:30).

This sequence is not only evident in 1 Corinthians and Psalm 1, but is demonstrable in the Scriptures and in the history of the church. Wrong thinking leads to wrong living and loose living ultimately hinders our worship, for we will ultimately seek our fellowship with fools, rather than with the congregation of the righteous, where genuine worship takes place.

As we leave this first verse, it must be pointed out that blessing comes not only from what we do, but also from what we avoid. Prohibitions are not punishment, but a divine protection. Adam and Eve were given great liberty in the Garden of Eden, but they were forbidden to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We now know why. Walking in the way of the righteous necessitates forsaking the way of the wicked. While the essence of our faith is not negative, some of its expressions are, and for our own blessing. Praise God for what He prohibits, as well as for what He provides!

We should also observe that while the first verse is largely negative, it is not entirely so. The opening words of verse 1 are, “Blessed is the man …” While it is not until verse 3 that these blessings are defined, the psalmist nevertheless begins on a positive note. The blessings of God are due, in part, to the obedience of His children to His prohibitions.

A Provision to Seek (v. 2)

Having dealt with the prohibitions of verse 1, the psalmist comes to the provisions of God which replace and far outweigh the negatives previously described. What the righteous avoids from the wicked he acquires from the Word of God: “… his delight is in the law of the Lord” (v. 2). It is amazing to read the arguments of men who would have us believe that the “law of the Lord” does not include the law of Moses.66 While more of the Old Testament Scriptures than just the five books of Moses may have been available to the saints of that day, the Pentateuch is surely included. In fact, verses 2 and 3 seem to allude to Joshua 1:8.

The problem we have with taking the psalmist’s words at face value reveals more about us than it does about the law of Moses. We are inclined to view the law as restrictive, petty, and confining. What we fail to recognize is that the law was not only the source of specific rules and regulations, but it was also intended to teach the Israelites principles which would govern their actions. The fundamental issue underlying the Sermon on the Mount was over the interpretation of the Old Testament law. The scribes and Pharisees interpreted the law only in terms of particulars (in Jesus’ words, “gnats,” Matt. 23:24), while Jesus was concerned as well with the principles (the “camels,” Matt. 23:24).

For example, the scribes and Pharisees differed among themselves over the reasons for which a man could divorce his wife. Jesus, on the other hand, did not want to talk about the exceptional cases where divorce was permitted “due to the hardness of men’s hearts,” but rather he emphasized the principle of permanence which the law taught: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matt. 19:6).

When Paul sought to demonstrate that he had the right, as a minister of the gospel, to be financially supported, he turned to a passage in the Book of Deuteronomy which seemed to have no direct relationship to his situation: “For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing’” (1 Cor. 9:9; cf. Deut. 25:4).

Paul went on to show that God’s primary concern was not for the ox, but for man (1 Cor. 9:9-10). This particular regulation was given to men to teach them the principle of remuneration. If the ox should not be muzzled so that he could benefit from the fruits of his labors, surely men who preach the Word of God should be provided for in their labor.

Since these principles are somewhat below the surface of the passage and therefore not immediately evident, we must meditate on the law in order to derive them. That is exactly what the godly man is pictured as doing: “… on his law he meditates day and night” (Ps. 1:2, NIV). The law does contain rules and regulations, commands and prohibitions, but, in addition, it is fuel for meditation.

The Hebrew word translated “meditate” is employed in some interesting ways. It is used, for example, “of a young lion growling over his prey (Isa. 31:4), of the moaning of a dove (Isa. 38:14), and as a synonym of ‘to speak’ (37:30, 71:24) or ‘to remember and to muse on.’”67 Anderson therefore suggests that to meditate “… may mean in our context ‘he reads to himself in a low tone.’”68

I saw a good illustration of meditation while I was watching the movie “Mary Poppins” with my children the other day. The father of the two children for whom Mary Poppins served as a “nanny” worked for an elderly and very feeble man (whose name I don’t remember). The father, upon being fired, told the elderly banker a joke about “a man with a wooden leg, named Smith,” concerning which someone had asked, “And what was the name of his other leg?” The old man failed to grasp the joke, but continued to ponder the words, mumbling them over and over to himself: “… a man with a wooden leg named Smith.” He was, in biblical terms, meditating. I can just hear the Israelite of old repeating to himself: “Don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Ex. 23:19) over and over. That is the way he would finally arrive at the principle which lay somewhat beneath the particular. Here is where real blessings are to be found in the Law of the Old Testament.

There is a change in the tense of the verb in verse 2 which heightens the contrast between verses 1 and 2. The force of this change can best be seen in Leupold’s translation:

O how happy is the person who has not shaped his conduct after the principles of the ungodly, Nor taken his stand in the way of sinners, Nor taken his seat in the assembly of scoffers! But it is in the law of the Lord that he takes his delight; And on His law he keeps pondering day and night.69

The impression which may be intended by this change of tense appears to be that the godly man has made a firm and final decision to avoid the principles, practices, and fellowship of the wicked. On the other hand, he delights in the law of God, persistently and habitually meditating upon God’s Word.70

The Prosperity of Those Who Seek (v. 3)

Verse 1 only briefly introduced the subject of the blessing of the righteous. In verse 3 we find a poetic description of the blessings which the righteous will experience. The prosperity which is promised the righteous is described by comparing the righteous man to a tree which is planted beside streams of water. Water, in the context of verse 2, would almost certainly be a poetic representation of the Word of God, the “law of the Lord.”

The righteous man is described in verse 2 as one who delights in the law of God and constantly meditates on His Word. In verse 3 a tree is used to picture his dependence on the Word of God and the blessings which flow from it. The life of a tree is dependent on a continual supply of water. While I know very little about trees, I am told that they absorb hundreds of gallons of water from the ground and return it to the atmosphere through their leaves. The point is thus made that just as the life of the tree is dependent on a supply of water, the spiritual life of the saint is dependent on the abundant supply of the Word of God. As our Lord Himself said, quoting from the law (Deut. 8:3), “‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’”(Matt. 4:4).

The last line of verse 3 promises prosperity in these words: “whatever he does prospers” (NIV). While this is true, it is important that we understand the nature of the prosperity that is promised. I personally believe that the previous lines of the verse have described prosperity in terms of the image of the tree which is planted by the waters. While the last statement clarifies the previous imagery and specifically applies it to the righteous man who abides in the Word, we need to interpret prosperity in the light of the context. In short, we need to understand that the tree prospers as a tree. So too, the saint prospers as a saint. Let us therefore consider the prosperity which is promised in the light of the imagery of the tree.

The tree prospers from the water by “yielding its fruit in season.” In other words, the tree prospers by fulfilling its purpose of bearing fruit. Some have spent their energies trying to determine just what kind of tree this is. In so doing I think they have missed the point entirely. In the first place (and most important) the text does not tell us what kind of tree. In the light of the New Testament teaching on spiritual gifts, I believe it is safe to say that Christians are various kinds of “trees,” depending on their specific gifts and calling (cf. Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:7-16; 1 Peter 4:10-11). A peach tree prospers by growing to maturity and bearing peaches. A shade tree prospers by growing tall and strong and producing shade. A godly man who abides in the Word of God prospers by growing to maturity and becoming what God has intended him to be and producing the spiritual fruit He has ordained.

Notice that the tree bears its fruit in its season. Just as water does not produce instantaneous growth or fruit in a tree, so the Word of God does not immediately bring us to maturity and fruitfulness. God has ordained that this is a process which takes time, indeed, a different time for each individual. I have several peach trees in my yard and none of them have fruit which matures at the same time. So too, each Christian has his own timetable for growth and productivity. Let us not expect to prosper in some spectacular way which avoids the normal processes and the passing of time. The measure of my prosperity is not necessarily determined by what I am doing at this very moment (although my present status is important).

Prosperity is seen in another way in trees. A tree prospers by surviving adverse conditions. The same wind which drives away the chaff does not topple the tree whose roots are sunk deeply into the soil to obtain water. And when dry spells come it is the tree whose root system is too shallow that is subject to drought. Its leaves wither and fall to the ground. This is not so with the tree that has an abundance of water. Adversity and testing cannot destroy the tree or its productivity. So with the saint, if we are deeply rooted in the Word of God, adversity may well come our way, but it need not hinder our growth or ministry.

Do you see now how it is that the psalmist says the saint will prosper if he abides in the Word of God and avoids the way of the wicked? The prosperity is not so much material as it is spiritual. We prosper by growing in grace, coming to maturity, and bearing fruit. Material prosperity is not the principle focus of this text.

Notice one other interesting thing as we leave verse 3: The fruit which the tree bears is not the same as the water which produced it. The fruit of a peach tree may be mostly water, but it isn’t water. The water is transformed in and by the tree into another, even more delightful, form.

If trees were like us instead of us being like trees, the trees would not have fruit—they would have faucets! A faucet on a tree might make water available to men, but it would not have changed it from the way it was received. Such a tree would simply be a kind of leafy pipe. While it is true the Word of God should transform us (cf. Rom. 12:2), it is also true that the Word of God should be transformed in us. Each believer should be sustained by the Word and then that Word should be manifested in a variety of beautiful “fruits” which would benefit others. Too many of us are simply containers of the truth. When we see a brother or sister in need of help we quote Scripture verses to them. We put out Scripture in exactly the same form that we take it in. That is not what trees do.

The Way of the Wicked (1:4-6)

4 Not so the wicked! They are like chaff that the wind blows away. 5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. 6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish. (NIV)

Verses 4 and 5 contrast the blessedness of the righteous against the backdrop of the peril of the wicked. The first line of verse 4 signals us that a contrast is at hand: “Not so the wicked!”71 The nature and destiny of the wicked are contrasted with that of the righteous by a change of figures from trees to chaff. Trees and chaff differ in several significant ways. First, the tree is different from chaff in its nature, for the tree has life. The reason why water benefits trees is because trees are alive. You can water chaff day and night, and it will not grow. It cannot grow because it has no life. Just so, the Word of God has hardly any beneficial effect on the wicked, for they have rejected not only the Word, but the God who revealed it. The only thing water does to chaff is make it wet.

Second, chaff differs from trees in its value. Trees are of great value. My parents own some property which has beautiful fir trees on it. The value of that property takes into account the value of the trees it contains. This is even more so in a land which has a scarcity of trees—a land such as Israel. I have read that the verbal contract between a buyer and seller of land in the Ancient Near East included an enumeration of the trees, which adds interest to our reading of Genesis 23:17. Because trees serve to break the force of the wind, offer us shade, cooler temperatures and fruit, we value them. Chaff, on the other hand, is considered a nuisance. It is the waste or residue remaining from the harvesting and winnowing of grain. Our only concern is to get rid of it. When grain was winnowed it was often done on a hilltop so the wind could blow the chaff away. This is the picture which is drawn in verse 4.

Third, chaff differs as to its destiny. A friend told me this week that in some places in Texas the chaff of rice is used to fire furnaces which then produce electricity. What a frighteningly accurate picture of the fate of the wicked! Verse 5 further explains the future of the wicked, clarifying the allusion to the judgment of the wicked in verse 4. The wicked, we are told, “will not stand in the judgment.” From the vantage point of the New Testament saint it is easy to see a reference to the ultimate judgment of the wicked by means of eternal damnation (cf. 2 Thes. 1:6-10; Rev. 20:11-15). While this text leaves room for this more complete understanding of ultimate judgment, I doubt that the Old Testament saint had a very complete grasp of it, just as his knowledge of heaven was limited. What, then, did the Old Testament saint understand this to mean? Primarily, I would suggest, he would have understood this statement in the light of his previous experience and in the light of the last half of verse 5, which serves to explain the fate of the wicked more clearly.

From the picture of the chaff (as contrasted with the tree) the judgment of the wicked involves removal. The wind blows it away (v. 4). The last statement in verse 5 describes this removal as the exclusion of the wicked from the “assembly of the righteous.” Just as the righteous could not be blessed by congregating with mockers (see above), neither could the wicked be found in the assembly of the righteous.

In the Old Testament we are supplied with abundant examples of divine judgment where God removed sinners from the congregation of the Israelites—examples with which the ancient Israelites who read the Psalms were very familiar. In Numbers 16 we read of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, who rebelled against the leadership of Moses. The Lord gave Moses these instructions: “Say to the assembly, ‘Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram’” (Num. 16:24).

The Lord then caused the ground to open up and to swallow Korah, Dathan and Abiram alive, along with their families. Moses then wrote these words: “They went down alive into the grave, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community” (Num. 16:33).

I believe it is safe to conclude from this and other instances of judgment in the Old Testament that the Israelites understood divine judgment to involve a removal from the congregation, which excluded an individual both from fellowship and from worship. Even ceremonial uncleanness brought about separation. The point was clearly made by this that sin results in separation from the congregation.

The same principle abides in the New Testament. Sin in the life of the saint which was willfully maintained, even after a rebuke, was to bring about discipline. Thus, the man who was living with his father’s wife was to be excluded from the church, at least for a time (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-13; perhaps also 2 Cor. 2:5-11). Later on, in 1 Corinthians 11 we read that irreverent behavior at the Lord’s Table resulted in the death of some (v. 30). Sin is judged by a separation from the congregation. This is even true of an unbeliever, whose eternal punishment is to be banned from the presence of God (2 Thes. 1:9).

An Explanation (v. 6)

The psalm concludes with an explanation for the different destinies of the righteous and the wicked. Verses 1-5 have described some of the critical differences between the righteous and the wicked. Verse 6 explains why the fate of the two differs.

Did you notice something unusual about the statement in verse 6? It does not say that the Lord watches over72 the righteous and punishes the wicked. It says, rather, “… the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.” Why this emphasis on the ways of the two rather than on the people themselves? I believe the answer is simple, yet profound in its implications. Men are blessed or condemned on the basis of only one decision—the way in which they have chosen to walk. There are only two ways from which to choose and every person is in one way or the other. The judgment some will receive is the result of their decision to walk in the way of the wicked. The blessings others will obtain are the result of their decision to walk in the way of righteousness.

While some of the particular signs along these two ways have changed, the same two ways exist today, along with the same two destinies. If the way of righteousness was chosen by a rejection of evil men and obedience to the Word of God in the Old Testament, men from the time of Christ until now choose to walk in the way of life by obedience to the living Word, Jesus Christ, who said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Men choose to remain in the way of the wicked by rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ and His atoning death.

“Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:14-18, NIV).

God does not show favorites. He blesses some and condemns others on the basis of the way in which they have chosen to walk. Would you desire the blessing of God in your life, my friend? Then you must walk in His way. Some people, Christians included, seem to think that God’s blessings are capriciously or haphazardly dispensed to men, or through some kind of magical or mystical process. Psalm 1 tells us that the way of blessing is the way of righteousness, which involves negatively the avoidance of worldly wisdom, worldly actions, and worldly fellowship (not contact, but intimacy and worship), and positively entails the pursuit of intimacy with God through His Word.

This psalm informs us of the promise which every other psalm in the Psalter assumes: God is the rewarder of those who trust and obey Him. The imprecatory psalms which urge God to judge the wicked simply request that God act consistently with what Psalm 1 assures us will happen to the wicked. The psalms of lament express the bewilderment of the righteous at the delay of God in bringing the blessings which Psalm 1 assures us will come to the righteous.

While this psalm expresses the underlying assumption of all the psalms, it is no new revelation. If you would, it is merely a poetic summary of the Old Testament law and, particularly, of its teaching on the blessings and cursings of God in response to Israel’s faithfulness to the covenant made with God. The blessings and cursings spelled out so graphically in Deuteronomy 27 and 28 are now summarized in these words of Moses:

This day I call heaven and earth as witness against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Deut. 30:19-20, NIV).

The Contribution of This Psalm to the Psalter

As we have seen, the message of Psalm 1 is not a new one. We will also discover that it is one frequently found in both the Old and New Testaments. Let me merely mention several passages for you to consider in connection with your study of Psalm 1.

In Jeremiah 17:7-8 the words of the prophet very clearly reflect a familiarity with Psalm 1. I would encourage you to study this passage in Jeremiah in its context, to see how it enhances your understanding of the message of the psalm and its application to daily life.

In Matthew 5–7 in the familiar Sermon on the Mount, our Lord Jesus frequently employed the term “blessed” which introduces Psalm 1. How did the interpretation which the scribes and Pharisees gave the Old Testament law keep it from being a blessing to men? How did Jesus differ in His interpretation and application of the Old Testament law? What should this do for your own understanding of the Old Testament?

Finally, consider John 15:1-17 as a commentary on Psalm 1. How is the tree of Psalm 1 like the branch of John 15? In what are we to abide in both passages? How are we to abide? Consider the two areas of human responsibility and divine sovereignty. How does each passage contribute to your understanding of the other?

There are various indications that this first psalm has been placed at the beginning of the Psalter to serve as an introduction. Kidner writes:

It seems likely that this psalm was specially composed as an introduction to the whole Psalter. Certainly it stands here as a faithful doorkeeper, confronting those who would be in ‘the congregation of the righteous’ (5) with the basic choice that alone gives reality to worship; with the divine truth (2) that must inform it; and with the ultimate judgment (5, 6) that looms up beyond it.73

I believe Kidner has summed up the contribution as well as can be done. Psalm 1 summarizes the essence of the law, which puts before men the choice of following God through obedience to His Word and receiving His blessings, or rejecting Him and His Word and facing His judgment. The psalm, while not what might be thought of as worship, certainly tells us the kind of person who is qualified to worship. Just as 1 Timothy 3 lays down the qualifications for church leaders, Psalm 1 sets down the qualifications for a worshipper. While the other psalms provide us with the material for worship, this psalm describes for us the one who is able to worship. Worship, then, is not just a matter of what we say and do, but of what kind of person we are. The wicked will not be in the congregation of the righteous, which is the very place where the psalms were used for corporate worship. If we must be in “the way of the righteous” to be blessed, we must also be in this “way” to worship “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24).

While the Samaritan woman of John 4 believed in worship, she was uninformed about the proper way to worship. The issue, ultimately, was not one of place, but of person. It was not until she had come to accept the Lord Jesus as the promised Messiah that she could worship in spirit and in truth. Worship is not primarily a matter of form, but of faith, and that faith must be in the Lord Jesus Christ as “the way, the truth, and the life.”

What better note on which to begin our study of the Psalms than that which has been struck by Psalm 1. If the man who is blessed of God is the one who chooses to abide in the Word of God, let us begin abiding in the Psalms. The blessed man was not the man who read commentaries about the Scriptures or who listened to sermons, but the man who was personally studying the Word of God for himself. I pray that as we continue our study my sermons will not be a hindrance to your study, but a help.

60 “If, as appears probable, Solomon made a collection of his father’s poetry for the service of the Temple, he might have prefixed this Psalm by way of preface, and this circumstance would account for the absence of any inscription.” Perowne, I, p. 108.

61 “It has been observed by Kirkpatrick that the three clauses of verse one ‘denote successive steps in a career of evil, and form a climax: (1) adoption of the principles of the wicked as a rule of life; (2) peristence in the practices of notorious offenders; (3) deliberate association with those who openly mock at religion.’” Sabourin, p. 372.

Leupold attempts to catch the force of the three phrases in verse 1 when he writes “But far heavier emphasis is laid on the fact that in his aversion to sin a godly man shuns every form of it at all times and in all places.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1969), p. 34.

62 “The noun `etsah, from the root ya`ats, does primarily mean ‘counsel,’ then the ‘assembly’ where such counsel is formulated; then it comes to mean in a more general way the ‘tendency’ displayed by any given counsel, and so ultimately can come to mean ‘principles’ as we have rendered it.” Ibid, p. 35.

63 “‘Scoffers’ (lesim) are the self-sufficient who act with haughty pride (Prov. 21:24), and who refuse to accept instruction both from God and from men (cf. Prov. 15:12; Mal. 3:13ff.).” A. A. Anderson, p. 59.

64 “… the Hebrew mosab means not only ‘seat’ or ‘place of sitting down’ but also ‘session’ or ‘assembly.’” Ibid.

66 “‘The law of the Lord’ in this verse probably refers to a written document, but it would be pointless to attempt its identification.” A. A. Anderson, I, p. 59.

67 Ibid, p. 60.

68 Ibid. Perowne writes, “Strictly, it means to utter any dull, confused sound: and hence it is employed of inward utterance, of the words a man speaks to himself; and also of giving open and loud expression to the thoughts.” Perowne, p. 109.

69 Leupold, p. 33.

70 Perowne quotes Hupfeld, who writes: “‘Evidently the negative side of the righteous man’s character, his decided aversion from evil, is regarded as an already accomplished fact, and therefore put in the perfect; the positive side, on the other hand, as that which is eternal (das ewige Moment), is put in the imperfect.’” He then goes on to express his own opinion: “I would rather say, the perfect expresses the past resolve and the conduct of which the effects still abide; the imperfect or aorist, the character as it presents itself at any moment, irrespective of all question of time.” Perowne, I, p. 111.

71 “A simple but emphatic contrast. The LXX., Vulg., and Syr. have repeated these words: ‘Not so are the wicked, not so.’” Ibid, I, p. 110.

72 “To ‘know’ is more than to be informed (as in 139:1-6): it includes to care about, as in 31:7 (Heb. 8), and to own or identify oneself with (cf. Pr. 3:6).” Kidner, I, p. 49.

4. Psalm 23: A Psalm That Calms the Soul

Introduction

Few people fail to appreciate the simplistic beauty and comfort contained in the Twenty-third Psalm. Many of you know it by heart. I feel somewhat like a tourist guide standing before you in the shadow of a magnificent mountain peak, attempting to describe its beauty—or like a guide in an art museum telling you of the magnificence of a priceless painting which has been universally regarded as a classic work for decades. Perhaps Bernhard Anderson has best expressed the value of the Twenty-third Psalm when he wrote,

No single psalm has expressed more powerfully man’s prayer of confidence ‘out of the depths’ to the God whose purpose alone gives meaning to the span of life, from womb to tomb.74

While few of us understand the life of the shepherd in the ancient Near East, most have been able to grasp the message of comfort and assurance conveyed in the psalm. Especially in times of distress, such as the death of a loved one, we instinctively turn to the assuring words, “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.”

The purpose of this message is to help us more clearly understand the imagery used to convey comfort and calm to the soul of those who are a part of God’s flock by faith in Jesus Christ. Additionally, we will explore new ways in which the truth of this psalm can be applied to our lives. Furthermore, since we are all to be shepherds of God’s flock in the broadest sense, we can learn a great deal not only about our Shepherd, but also about shepherding.

David is identified in the superscription as the author of the psalm. We are hardly surprised. After all, David was a shepherd in his youth (1 Sam. 16:11; 17:15, 28, 34-36). David’s shepherding days (like those of his predecessor Moses, cf. Exod. 3:1) served to prepare him for shepherding God’s flock, the nation Israel: “He also chose David His servant, and took him from the sheepfolds; from the care of the ewes with suckling lambs He brought him, to shepherd Jacob His people, and Israel His inheritance” (Ps. 78:70-71).

It may appear at first glance that David would have written this psalm as a boy while tending his flock. No doubt David did write psalms as he spent lonely hours with his flocks in the field, but it is difficult to imagine that a psalm of such depth could have been written by a young lad.75 A young lad knows little of the dangers and disappointments of life or of the opposition which is referred to in verses 4 and 5. If the “house of the Lord” in verse 6 is a reference to the temple, it was only a future hope later in David’s life, not in his youth (cf. 2 Sam. 7).

There is a fair amount of disagreement about the structural divisions of Psalm 23, based upon differences of opinion in the number of poetic images employed. Some see only one image—the shepherd’s, which underlies the entire psalm. Others believe there is also the image of the hospitable host or the friend in verses 5 and 6. Some even see the imagery of a guide in verses 3 and 4. I am inclined to see two images in the psalm, that of the shepherd (vv. 1-4) and that of the host (vv. 5-6).76 With this background in mind, let us begin our study of Psalm 23.

The Sheep and the Shepherd (23:1-4)

1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want. 2 He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside quiet waters. 3 He restores my soul; He guides me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake. 4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me. (NASB)

Knowing David was a shepherd in his early years, we may be inclined to interpret this psalm from the perspective of the shepherd. Phillip Keller has written a book on Psalm 23 entitled A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, which has many helpful insights. He writes from the background of growing up in East Africa and later making his living as a sheep rancher for about eight years. However as Keller points out,77 the vantage point of the psalm is from the perspective of the sheep, not that of the shepherd. I am tempted to entitle these verses, “A Sheep Looks at his Shepherd in Psalm 23.” Let us then consider our Great Shepherd from the viewpoint of the sheep.

The shepherd theme is introduced in the first verse: “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.”

The shepherd image was very common in the ancient Near East78 and very obviously based upon one of the principal occupations of that day. The Israelites, in particular, were known as shepherds (cf. Gen. 46:28-34). The term “shepherd” came to be used in a much broader way,79 describing leadership either of an individual or a group. Jacob spoke of God as “The God who has been my shepherd all my life …” (Gen. 48:15; cf. 49:24). The title of shepherd was given to kings, especially David (2 Sam. 5:2; 7:7; Ps. 78:71), and the Messiah who was to come, of whom David was a type (Ezek. 34:23-24; Mic. 5:4). Thus the Lord Jesus identified himself as the Good Shepherd (John 10:11; cf. Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4).

When David spoke of Yahweh as his shepherd, he thought of Him not only as his provider and protector but also as his king. He thought of God as his shepherd with the breadth of meaning this term conveyed in the ancient Near East (in general) and in the Law (in particular). Because God was David’s shepherd, he lacked (wanted) nothing. A good shepherd is all a sheep needs since a good shepherd, by his very nature will always supply all of the sheep’s needs. In a similar way, a good father will provide for every need of his child.

As a young boy I was troubled by the language of this verse and thought the expression, “I shall not want,” meant that David didn’t want the shepherd. Now I understand that David meant that since he had the Lord as his shepherd, he had no other want; he was lacking nothing. The significance of this statement can hardly be overemphasized. All through the ages Satan has attempted to portray God as a begrudging giver who only provides when He must. Satan desires to deceive those who trust in God, and wants them to believe they are lacking and deprived of the good things in life. This is the picture Satan tried to paint in suggesting that God had withheld the fruit of every tree of the garden from Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:1). God is also portrayed as a begrudging giver in the temptation of our Lord (Matt. 4:1-11) and in the warning of Paul concerning the doctrine of demons (1 Tim. 4:1-4).

The mentality behind David’s words is completely opposed to the Madison Avenue propaganda where we are constantly being told that we have many needs, all of which can be met by buying some new (or old) product. We need “sex appeal” so we must buy a new toothpaste, a new kind of mouthwash and a new brand of soap. We need self-confidence and a better self-image, therefore we must wear stylish clothing determined by the garment industry. Our whole mode of thinking is “want-centered.” David tells us that to have God as our shepherd is indeed to have everything we want. He who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-caring, is enough; He is sufficient. With Him we need nothing else (cf. Ps. 73:25-26).

Israel had found God to be a faithful provider of their needs during their years in the wilderness: “For the Lord your God has blessed you in all that you have done; He has known your wanderings through this great wilderness. These forty years the Lord your God has been with you; you have not lacked a thing” (Deut. 2:7).

The Israelites also had God’s assurance that they would lack nothing when they possessed the land of Canaan:

For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, flowing forth in valleys and hills; a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey; a land where you shall eat food without scarcity, in which you shall not lack anything; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills you can dig copper (Deut. 8:7-9).

We must be very careful here, however, that we do not go too far. We should not understand David to mean that with God as his shepherd he had everything one could possibly desire or possess; this would be as wrong as to think that Israel never did without anything while in the wilderness (cf. Deut. 2:7, above). In Deuteronomy 8 Moses told the Israelites that God “let them be hungry” to test them and to teach them (vv. 2-3). The clear implication of David’s statement in Psalm 23:1 is that as one of God’s sheep he will lack nothing which is necessary for his best interest. Verses 4 and 5 confirm this as well. As David wrote elsewhere: The young lions do lack and suffer hunger; but they who seek the Lord shall not be in want of any good thing (Ps. 34:10, emphasis mine; cf. also Ps. 84:11).

In verses 2-4 David describes those things for which he, as God’s sheep, will never lack. It is necessary to give a word of caution as we approach these verses filled with poetic imagery and therefore susceptible to abuse. David is describing God’s relationship to him in terms of a kindly shepherd’s relationship to one of his sheep. It is to be expected that he will speak of God’s care in sheep-like terms. We must be careful, however, not to restrict David’s meaning only to a literal, non-spiritual sense. Conversely, we must not let the imagery be carried too far so that we begin to see too much. There is a very delicate balance required when we attempt to interpret this kind of poetic imagery.80

I am inclined to think that the emphasis of verses 2-3a falls upon the rest which the Good Shepherd provides for his sheep. This seems to be the point of the key terms in each line. The expression “lie down” speaks of rest (cf. the use of the same term in Gen. 29:2; Isa. 17:2; Ezek. 34:15). Leupold81 reminds us that sheep do not graze lying down. From Ezekiel 34:15 I understand that the sheep would lie down to rest after having been fed. The adequate provision of lush pasture land, or “grassy meadows”82 and “quiet waters” (literally, “waters of rest,” margin, NASB)83 to which the shepherd has led his sheep, causes them to lie down in rest.

The first line of verse 3, “He restores my soul,” continues this same thought of the rest which God provides for his sheep. Taken in its most literal and restricted sense, this expression conveys David’s thought that God “renews and sustains my life.”84 As David’s shepherd, God provides him with rest and restoration. He does this by supplying him with the necessary provisions of food and water, which sheep require. Rest is certainly related to the required physical provisions of food and water, but rest is also related to restoration. In order to be refreshed and renewed in spirit, rest is a prerequisite.

Psalm 23 cannot be fully appreciated apart from the word of God spoken to Israel through the prophet Ezekiel. Against the backdrop of the false shepherds who had abused and oppressed God’s flock, God promised to return to His people as their shepherd and to give them rest:

For thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. As a shepherd cares for his herd in the day when he is among his scattered sheep, so I will care for My sheep and will deliver them from all the places to which they were scattered on a cloudy and gloomy day. And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries and bring them to their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the streams, and in all the inhabited places of the land. I will feed them in a good pasture, and their grazing ground will be on the mountain heights of Israel. There they will lie down in good grazing ground, and they will feed in rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I will feed My flock and I will lead them to rest,” declares the Lord God (Ezek. 34:11-15).

It appears that there is a spiritual meaning implied in Psalm 23:2-3a85 which presses beyond the literal meaning of physical nourishment and rest. This is strongly suggested by David’s use of the same expression “to restore the soul” in Psalm 19: “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (Ps. 19:7).

While a shepherd provides his sheep with food, rest, and restoration, God provides His sheep with His Word, which is the principle means of giving spiritual nourishment, rest, and restoration.

The second and third lines of verse 3 remind us that as a shepherd leads his flock, so God guides His people: “He guides me in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake.”

Guidance86 is recognized as one of the principle tasks of the shepherd. He leads his sheep to places of nourishment and rest (v. 2), but he also leads them in the proper paths. Often it is necessary for the shepherd to lead his flock great distances to find both pasture and water. Some paths are dangerous and should be avoided. The good shepherd leads his sheep in the right paths.

God’s guidance in the life of a believer is more than just a matter of leading us in the “right path”; it involves His leading us in “paths of righteousness.”87 What a wonderful word of comfort for those who seem to think that God’s will is some kind of mystery, known only to the few who are so fortunate to find it. One of the assurances the psalmist is confident he will never lack is the leading of God in his life. Let us learn from David that we can be confident of God’s leading in our lives when the Lord is our Shepherd, for the shepherd always leads his flock.

Verse 4 gives us yet another reason why God can be relied on to guide His sheep. He guides us “for His name’s sake.” A. A. Anderson has correctly caught the force of this expression when he renders it, “he acts for the sake of his reputation.”88 The measure of a shepherd is the condition of his flock. God’s reputation rests upon His ability to guide and care for His people. Just as parents are evaluated by the way they care for their children, shepherds are judged by the condition of their flocks. God’s reputation as seen by His care of His people is the basis of Moses’ appeal for mercy when God threatened to wipe out the nation for the incident involving the golden calf (Exod. 32:1-14, esp. vv. 11-12). Paul tells us that God’s work of saving men by grace was for the purpose of bringing praise “to the glory of his grace” (cf. Eph. 1:5-6, 12, 14). We can be confident that God will guide His people because their lives reflect on Him as their Shepherd. What a wonderful assurance!

Verse 4 further qualifies the “I shall not want” of verse 1b. The fact that God was David’s shepherd did not keep him from many trials and tribulations. His life was sought without cause by king Saul, who became jealous of David’s success (cf. 1 Sam. 18:6-9). In addition David sinned and suffered the painful consequences (cf. 2 Sam. 11–12; 1 Chron. 21). David was truly a “man of sorrows.” Nowhere did God promise David (or any other saint) freedom from the suffering and trials of life. Even though God is our shepherd we will still go through trying times, but we will never “want” for the comfort which comes from His presence and His power.

In order for God’s sheep to be led to grassy meadows and restful streams, they must pass through dark and dangerous places.89 The “paths of righteousness” (v. 3) are not always peaceful paths.90 While we are never promised there will be no evil, we can be assured that we need “fear no evil” (v. 4), for we will always be in the Shepherd’s presence if we follow Him in His paths.

There is a subtle but significant change which occurs in verse 4. Did you notice the change of pronouns? The more impersonal “he” of verses 2 and 3 is now the much more intimate “Thou” in verse 4.91 As someone has observed, God goes before us when the path is smooth, but He stands beside us when the way is dangerous and frightening. It is His presence which dispels our fears. Furthermore, His “rod” and “staff” (v. 4c) give us comfort. Whether there are two distinct instruments indicated by these two terms92 or just one93 is open to discussion. The “rod” and the “staff” serve here as instruments of protection and assistance. They were used both to ward off enemies and to rescue straying sheep. Perhaps the disciplinary use of the “rod” is implied as well. Discipline may seem unpleasant at the moment, but it is a comfort in the long term (cf. Heb. 12:5-12) and a motivation for us to “make our paths straight” (Heb. 12:13). While God may not always use His power to keep us out of trials, His presence and His power will always be with us to keep us through our trials. As He Himself said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you” (Heb. 13:5; cf. Deut. 31:6; Josh. 1:5).

The Guest and the Hospitable Host (23:5-6)

5 Thou dost prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; Thou hast anointed my head with oil; My cup overflows. 6 Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life, And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever. (NASB)

David has described his relationship to God using the imagery of the shepherd and his sheep. He now describes this same relationship employing the imagery of a hospitable host. The relationship of a host with his guest is even closer than that of a shepherd with his sheep.94 The shepherd motif need not be prolonged as some suggest. Just as well known in the ancient Near East was the significance of the hospitality offered to a traveler:

According to the Bedouin law of hospitality, once a traveler is received into the shepherd’s tent, and especially once his host has spread food before him, he is guaranteed immunity from enemies who may be attempting to overtake him. In pastoral circles no human protection is greater than that afforded by the hospitality of a Bedouin chief.95

No greater security or comfort could be obtained by a traveler in the ancient Near East than to be offered the hospitality of a home. It was understood that this was a provision of shelter and food, but even more it was a guarantee of protection from harm. We can sense this from Old Testament passages such as Genesis 18:1-8, where Abram graciously entertained three “men” who passed by as strangers. More enlightening (and distressing!) is the passage in the 19th chapter of Genesis, where Lot took the two “men” (angels) into his house as guests when the men of Sodom threatened to assault them:

But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof” (Gen. 19:6-8).

Whether or not we are able to grasp how a father could offer his virgin daughters to such a mob, we must at least gain some appreciation for the strong sense of obligation Lot felt to the two men in view of his hospitality.96 Psalm 23:5 describes this type of protective hospitality.

To sit as a guest at the table of a host was to be assured of food, housing, fellowship and protection. The table prepared in the presence of David’s enemies was the host’s public announcement to them not to attempt to molest David in any way. This offered great security, especially since the host was a man of influence and generosity. The amount of security which any host could provide depended upon his prestige and power. The abundance of his provisions indicated that he was a prosperous, powerful, and generous man. To have the hospitality of such a host was to be secure indeed!

The psalmist’s head was anointed with oil, a generous gesture97 which bestowed honor on him as an esteemed guest. The cup was likewise a gesture of generosity. It was not half-filled, but running over. David was not served “leftovers,” but was abundantly given the finest provisions in the house. Satisfaction, significance, and security are all abundantly supplied to the believer by God, as indicated by the imagery of the hospitable host.98 An even greater fellowship and graciousness is suggested by the hospitality motif than by that of the pastoral imagery.

As a result of the provisions of verse 5 David can confidently summarize his security in the words of verse 6: “Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.”

Goodness and lovingkindness are probably the two most comforting attributes of God’s character for the Christian. They are especially consoling in times of distress. These characteristics of God are linked to His covenant with Israel.99 In contrast with the wicked man, who is beset by judgment and calamity (Ps. 35:6; 140:11), the righteous man is not just followed by goodness and kindness, but pursued by it.100 As a guest at God’s table, his enemies no longer stalk David; instead God’s goodness pursues him.101 God not only walks before us, leading us to places of rest and refreshment, but His goodness follows us from behind as well.

Most significantly, David is not a guest for a few days at the home of his gracious host; he is a permanent part of this household. There is an old Greek saying that goes something like this: “A guest is like a fish … After three days, he stinks.” To be a guest in God’s house is not limited to three days. David is assured that he will “dwell in the house of the Lord”102 forever.103

The temple was not yet built in David’s day. Although he desired to build the temple, this task was left to his son Solomon (2 Sam. 7). David may have been looking forward to that future day in eternity when he could fellowship with God in the temple. It may well be, however, that David is simply looking forward to continued fellowship and communion with God as he has already experienced it in his life. God’s care in the past is but a sample, a kind of first-fruits of what is yet ahead.

Conclusion

The blessings and the calmness of soul which David experienced in his life and expressed in this psalm would be a delight to anyone, but how can we be assured of them in our lives? The answer is almost too simple to believe: in order to enjoy the benefits of the care of the Good Shepherd we must be one of His sheep. In the words of the Good Shepherd Himself: ““My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:27-28).

Those who enjoy the benefits of being cared for by the Good Shepherd (John 10:14) are those who know the Shepherd’s voice and who follow Him. They understand that He has laid down His life for them (John 10:15). They enter into eternal blessings through Jesus Christ who is the door to the sheepfold (John 10:1ff.). Those who do not believe in Jesus Christ as their Shepherd are not sheep, but “dogs” and “hogs” (cf. 2 Pet. 2:22).

It is amazing to ponder that in order to become the Good Shepherd our Lord first had to become a sheep—the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (cf. John 1:29). If you would experience the comfort and consolation of Psalm 23, you can only do so as a sheep, as a guest who has been invited to sit at the Lord’s table. Christian comfort is only for Christians.

One of the lessons of Psalm 23 is that every person who is one of God’s flock (by personal faith in Christ) is individually cared for as one of God’s sheep. In our church we emphasize “body life,” and I believe this is rightly so. Never forget that while you are also one of God’s flock, His care for you is an individual type of care, not merely as a number or as a series of perforations in a computer card. David never lost his sense of individual pastoral care from the hand of his Shepherd.

Two doubts tend to make us question this kind of personal and individual care. The first is tribulation. Some seem to feel that God cares about them only when everything is going well. In sheep-like terms, they think God is with them only when they are lying in grassy meadows alongside restful waters. However, once they find themselves in a dark valley they question the presence and the pastoral care of their Shepherd. David never lost his assurance of God’s care and His keeping. In fact, in times of distress, God’s care and keeping was more certain than ever. The second cause of doubt is when our “under-shepherds” fail us. God cares for us individually, but He also cares for us through others. When human shepherds fail us, we may begin to question the concern of the Good Shepherd. Let us learn that God Himself never fails us, never leaves us, and never will forsake us.

While this message does not dwell on this area of application, allow me to suggest that Psalm 23 not only describes the Good Shepherd, but also good shepherding. Let us see this psalm not only as a superb text on the Shepherd, but as a model for all shepherds. That which makes God a Good Shepherd also serves as a model to us of proper shepherding. Let us seek to study God’s shepherding and to strive to shepherd others as God shepherds us.

In conclusion, let me note also the providence of God in the life of David. How insignificant it must have seemed to David to be a “mere” shepherd boy. That seems to be the inference of his older brothers who were off doing more important work such as fighting wars (cf. 1 Sam. 17:28). Yet David’s was a very important task. It readied him for battle (cf. 1 Sam. 17:33-37) and even more, helped prepare David to be a shepherd of God’s flock (Ps. 78:70-71) and to write about the Good Shepherd. The seemingly insignificant tasks and experiences of our lives are of great importance. Let us do them well.

74 Bernhard W. Anderson, Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974), p. 144.

75 I am inclined to agree with Leupold, who writes, “Yet it is far less likely that ‘the sweet psalmist of Israel’ (II Sa. 23.1) wrote this piece in his youthful days while he was still tending his father’s flock. Romantic as that thought may seem, it would be far more in keeping with what the Scriptures reveal elsewhere concerning him, when they tell us that after his anointing the spirit of God came upon him (I Sam. 16:13), to assume that the spirit-filled servant of the Lord composed such helpful songs as these. Details found in v. 2 especially indicate that it was, perhaps, even the older David who composed the psalm.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1969), p. 209.

76 This is the view of Bernhard Anderson, who writes, “The major problem in interpreting this psalm is that it presents two images which seem to be inconsistent. In verses 1-4 Yahweh is portrayed as the Good Shepherd who cares for his flock; in verses 5 and 6, on the other hand, Yahweh is the Host who offers hospitality to a guest and protects him from enemies. … The shepherd can be portrayed from two standpoints. He is the protector of the sheep as they wander in search of grazing land. Yet he is also the protector of the traveler who finds hospitality in his tent from the dangers and enemies of the desert.” Anderson, Out of the Depths, p. 145. Cf. also A. A. Anderson, Psalms 1-72 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972), I, p. 195, who outlines three views, of which he sees the second (Bernhard Anderson’s view) as the most likely. Cf. also, Leupold, pp. 208-209, who is inclined toward just the one figure of a shepherd.

77 “Obviously, David, in this Psalm, is speaking not as the shepherd, though he was one, but as a sheep; one of the flock.” Phillip Keller, A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), p. 17.

78 A. A. Anderson writes, “This terminology is not, however, peculiar to Israel, but it is also found among other nations of the ancient Near East; e.g. Hammurabi is called ‘the shepherd’ (ANET, p. 164b) or ‘the shepherd of the people’ (ANET, p. 165b; cf. also p. 177b). In the Hymn to the Sun-God (ANET, p. 387b, line 26), Shamash is designated as ‘shepherd of (the people of the world).’” A. A. Anderson, I, p. 196.

79 “In the word shepherd, David uses the most comprehensive and intimate metaphor yet encountered in the Psalms, preferring usually the more distant ‘king’ or ‘deliverer,’ or the impersonal ‘rock,’ ‘shield,’ etc.; whereas the shepherd lives with his flock and is everything to it: guide, physician and protector.” Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), pp. 109-110.

80 It is my personal opinion that Phillip Keller (A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23), at times, lets his knowledge of sheep carry him beyond David’s intended meaning. I fear that Leupold does the same in his interpretation of verse 5. Instead of taking the “table” which is set by a gracious host as a different image, Leupold seems obliged to persist with the “shepherd” imagery and thus to say of the “table” and the “oil” of verse 5: “For, in the first place, the ‘table’ (shalchan), as dictionaries point out, was in days of old a large piece of leather on which food was set or, in this case, on which some supplementary reserve fodder might be spread by the shepherd on days when forage was scarce. In like manner shepherds are still known to carry a little flask of oil to anoint the scratched face of the sheep that was obliged to seek its food among thorns and brambles.” Leupold, pp. 213, 214.

I do, however, agree with Leupold when he warns us of taking these highly figurative terms mechanically, thereby missing their spiritual implications: “… it is not only physical well-being that the true Shepherd provides for His own. It savors of pedantry to press this statement, ‘He restores my soul,’ to the level of what sheep can experience and to stress, what is true enough that nephesh can also mean ‘life,’ and so arrive at the meaning: He revives me or my life. One must allow for deeper values and not insist on purely mechanical procedures.” Leupold, pp. 211-212.

81 Ibid, p. 211.

82 Ibid.

83 “The quiet waters”: “Lit. waters of rest: not gently-flowing streams, but streams where they may find rest and refreshment (Is. xxxii. 18). … The Promised Land was to be Israel’s rest (Deut. xii. 9; Ps. xcv. 11).” A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1982), p. 125.

84 Ibid.

85 “He restores my soul is an expression open to more than one interpretation. It may picture the straying sheep brought back, as in Isaiah 49:5, or perhaps Psalm 60:1 (Heb. 3), which use the same verb, whose intransitive sense is often ‘repent’ or ‘be converted’ (e.g. Ho. 14:1f.; Joel 2:12). Psalm 19:7, by its subject (the law) and by the parallel verb (‘making wise’), points to a spiritual renewal of this kind, rather than mere refreshment. On the other hand, my soul usually means ‘my life’ or ‘myself’; and ‘restore’ often has a physical or psychological sense, as in Isaiah 58:12, or using another part of the verb, Proverbs 25:13, Lamentations 1:11, 16, 19. In our context the two senses evidently interact, so that the retrieving or reviving of the sheep pictures the deeper renewal of the man of God, spiritually perverse or ailing as he may be.” Kidner, Psalms 1-72, p. 110.

86 Kirkpatrick has observed that the term “guides” (v. 3) is “… often used of God’s guidance of His people collectively (Ex. xv. 13; Deut. xxxii. 12), and individually (Ps. v. 8, xxvii. 11, etc.).” Kirkpatrick, pp. 125-126.

87 “… paths of righteousness, which, in terms of sheep, mean no more than ‘the right paths,’ but have, further, a demanding moral content for the human flock (cf. Pr. 11:5), whose ways will either shame or vindicate their Shepherd’s good name. Ezekiel 36:22-32 draws out this searching implication of the phrase for his name’s sake, but adds the corollary that, to uphold that name, God will make new men of us, whose ways will be His own.” Kidner, p. 110.

89 “The familiar translation ‘the shadow of death’ goes beyond the meaning of the Hebrew term which means ‘deep darkness’ (Amos 5:8; Isa. 9:2; Ps. 44:19). Yet this secondary interpretation is consistent with the original meaning, for in the view of the psalmists the power of death encroaches into a person’s life when the vitality of his life is weakened.” Anderson, Out of the Depths, pp. 147-148.

“… the literal meaning of the single Hebrew word salmawet, which occurs nearly twenty times in the Old Testament, and RSV is right to retain it here. In many of this word’s occurrences ‘death’ could be a kind of superlative, as in NEB’s rendering here, ‘dark as death,’ and in the term ‘deep darkness,’ used by RSV elsewhere. Such a translation here (cf. RP’s footnote, ‘the darkest valley’) would widen the reference of the verse to include other crises besides the final one. But although darkness is the leading thought in most of the Old Testament contexts, death is dominant in a few, including (in my view) the present verse. In Job 38:17 the gates of salmawet are equivalent to ‘the gates of death’ in the same verse; in Jeremiah 2:6 this term describes the peril of the desert, which is a place of death rather than of special darkness; and elsewhere the LXX makes ‘shadow of death’ its most frequent translation of the word. In Matthew 4:16 the insertion of ‘and’ (‘the land and shadow of death’) treats ‘death’ as more than a mere reinforcement of ‘shadow,’ and in the Benedictus it marks a climax after ‘darkness’ (Lk. 1:79).” Kidner, p. 111.

90 “The dark valley, or ravine, is as truly one of His ‘right paths’ as are the green pastures—a fact that takes much of the sting out of any ordeal.” Kidner, p. 110.

91 “Thou, at this point of danger, replaces the more distant ‘He’, in a person-to-person address; for the Shepherd is no longer ahead, to lead, but alongside to escort. In times of need, companionship is good; and He is armed. The rod (a cudgel worn at the belt) and staff (to walk with, and to round up the flock) were the shepherd’s weapon and implement: the former for defense (cf. I Sa. 17:35), the latter for control—since discipline is security.” Ibid, p. 111.

92 “Rod (sebet) was a club used in defense, to drive away the wild animals or any other enemy (cf. 2 Sam. 23:21; Mic. 7:14). It could occasionally be tipped with metal or studded with nails (cf. G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina (1932), VI, pp. 238ff.). Staff was probably a wooden rod, longer than the club, which could be used as a support.” A. A. Anderson, Psalms 1-72, p. 198.

93 Leupold tends toward the view that both “rod” and “staff” refer to the shepherd’s crook, which is a multi-purpose instrument: “Perhaps, then, those interpreters are nearest the truth who claim that the one commonly observed shepherd’s crook could be used for purposes of defense as well as to guide and direct sheep that stray from the road …” Leupold, p. 213.

94 “The shepherd imagery has served its purpose, to be replaced by one of greater intimacy.” Kidner, p. 111.

95 Anderson, Out of the Depths, p. 148, cf. also Ps. 27:5; 61:4.

96 The converse of the principle of hospitality is powerfully carried out in church discipline, where the willfully sinful saint is excluded from eating with his fellow-believers (1 Cor. 5:11). In a similar way, Christians are warned about eating a pagan religious meal with unbelievers, because of the intimacy and union of such an act (1 Cor. 10:14-22).

97 “Jehovah is no niggard host, like the Pharisee (Luke vii. 46); He provides for the joys as well as the necessities of life (John ii. 1-11); His guests shall be of a cheerful countenance and a gladsome heart (civ. 15).” Kirkpatrick, p. 127.

98 “Oil and perfumes were symbolic of rejoicing, and as such they would be used on festive occasions; even the arrival of a guest might come into this category (cf. 45:7 (M. T. 8), 92:10 (M. T. 11), 133:2; Ec. 9:8; Am. 6:6; Lk. 7:46).” A. A. Anderson, pp. 198-199.

“The reference is to the unguents and perfumes which were the regular accompaniment of an Oriental banquet (Amos vi. 6; Ps. xlv. 7, xcii. 10), not to the regal anointing, for which a different word is used.” Kirkpatrick, p. 127.

He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the labor of man, so that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine which makes man’s heart glad, so that he may make his face glisten with oil, and food which sustains man’s heart (Ps. 104:14-15).

99 “Mercy is the covenant-word rendered ‘steadfast love’ elsewhere (see on 17:7). Together with goodness it suggests the steady kindness and support that one can count on in the family or between firm friends. With God these qualities are not merely solid and dependable, but vigorous—for to follow does not mean here to bring up the rear but to pursue, as surely as His judgments pursue the wicked (83:15).” Kidner, p. 112.

100 Kirkpatrick, p. 127.

101 “Now it is no longer his enemies who ‘pursue’ him; rather it is Yahweh’s grace and goodness that follow after him as long as he lives.” Bernhard Anderson, Out of the Depths, p. 148.

102 “The language is figurative, and the phrase ‘house of the Lord’ does not necessarily imply the existence of the temple (Ex. xxiii. 19; Jud. xviii.31; I Sam. i.7), though it must be admitted that it seems to point to it.” Kirkpatrick, pp. 124-125.

103 “Forever is lit. (in this verse) ‘to length of days,’ which is not in itself an expression for eternity. But since the logic of God’s covenant allows no ending to His commitment to a man, as our Lord pointed out (Mt. 22:32), the Christian understanding of these words does no violence to them.” Kidner, pp. 112-113.

5. Psalm 34: The Fear of the Lord

Introduction

Were it not for the superscription to this psalm, Psalm 34 could be read as a beautiful response of praise and instruction based upon some unknown incident in which David was delivered from danger. Our difficulty in understanding the psalm arises from its historical setting:104 “A Psalm of David when he feigned madness before Abimelech, who drove him away and he departed.”105 I am immediately troubled by these words. Should David have been in Gath? Is his feigned insanity consistent with the dignity of the office of a king? Should God be praised because David pretended to be insane and thus escaped danger? Should others be taught (cf. vv. 11-22) on the basis of this kind of behavior? How can a psalm which condemns deceit (v. 13) be based upon the actions of a deceiver?

One might reason that these questions surface because of an inaccurate perception of the incident referred to in the superscription.106 Actually the opposite is true. The more one studies 1 Samuel 21:10-15 in context, the more distressing becomes David’s conduct when he was pursued by Saul. While I had previously viewed this time in David’s life as one of spiritual vitality and personal piety, a more careful study reveals that he was a man with feet of clay. Since the superscription is intended to turn our attention to the historical setting of the psalm, let us begin by considering David’s conduct as he fled from Saul. We will approach this broadly at first, looking at the context in which 1 Samuel 21:10-15 is found, and then consider the incident in Gath specifically.

The death of Goliath and the rout of the Philistines (1 Sam. 17) quickly swept David from obscurity to renown as a military hero. The women of Israel sang, “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (1 Sam. 18:7). The popularity of David surpassed Saul, making the king extremely jealous (18:8-9). Saul began to look upon David as his rival, and eventually he was marked out for death (cf. 18:10-11, 20-29).

Just as Saul sinfully responded to David’s popularity, David also reacted wrongly to the danger occasioned by Saul’s murderous intentions. Deception became David’s way of dealing with danger. The events leading up to Psalm 34 begin in 1 Samuel 19 when David escaped Saul’s assassination plot (19:10). He fled Saul’s spear, being lowered from a window by Michal, his wife. She then (at David’s instruction?) deceived her father. To allow time for David to escape, Michal placed a dummy made from a household idol in his bed (19:11-17). Sometime later David was expected to sit at Saul’s table to celebrate the feast of the new moon. Fearing for his life he asked Jonathan to lie about his absence from the festivities. Jonathan falsely explained to his father that David had gone to offer a sacrifice for his family at Bethlehem (20:6).

Later David fled to Nob. There Ahimelech the priest questioned David as to why he appeared alone. David fallaciously replied to the priest that Saul had commissioned him to carry out an urgent task and that he was to rendezvous with his men at an appointed place (21:1-2). David requested provisions and a weapon from Ahimelech. He was given some of the consecrated bread107 and the sword he had taken from Goliath.

David’s flight to Nob was costly. Along with eighty-four other priests, Ahimelech was executed at Saul’s command. Saul’s paranoid purge included the slaughter of the men, women, children and cattle of Nob (22:6-19).108 David acknowledged to Abiathar, the only son of Ahimelech to survive the massacre at Nob, that he was morally responsible for the slaughter (v. 22).

How was it possible for David, in the words of Psalm 34, to “seek and pursue peace” (v. 14) with a sword? When David went out to do battle with Goliath he said that he did not require a sword for the Lord was on his side:

“This day the Lord will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the Lord’s and He will give you into our hands” (1 Sam. 17:46-47).

God was not only able to deliver David from Goliath without a sword, but He could also protect David from the treachery of Saul without David resorting to the use of Goliath’s sword. In 1 Samuel 19 we are told that David fled to Samuel at Ramah, after which the two of them went to stay in Naioth (v. 18). Saul heard that David was at Naioth and dispatched forces to arrest him. On three occasions Saul’s arresting forces were confronted by Samuel and a company of prophets; they were overcome by the Spirit of God so that they prophesied. Those men who were under the control of the Holy Spirit could not lay a hand on God’s anointed. Finally, Saul personally led his forces, only to prophesy himself (vv. 23-24). Without a sword or a spear, God was able to spare David’s life. Why, then, did David feel it urgent that he arm himself with a weapon?

In 1 Samuel 25 we find David and his men living in the wilderness of Paran (v. 1). There David gave Nabal’s shepherds protection without requiring payment. He therefore requested from Nabal a token of his appreciation (vv. 5-8). Nabal foolishly denied this request, refusing to acknowledge that David was the coming king of Israel, as his wife Abigail testified (v. 30). David impetuously set out to attack Nabal, intending to kill him and every male heir. Only by the wise and godly intervention of Abigail was David turned from his act of vengeance (vv. 9-35).109 Surely David was not “seeking peace” in the way he instructed others to do in Psalm 34.

One final incident must be mentioned before we turn to David’s first flight to Gath in 1 Samuel 21. David made a second flight to Achish in Gath in 1 Samuel 27. In this instance it is very clear that David fled to this Philistine city out of fear and unbelief:

Then David said to himself, “Now I will perish one day by the hand of Saul. There is nothing better for me than to escape into the land of the Philistines. Saul then will despair of searching for me any more in all the territory of Israel, and I will escape from his hand” (1 Sam. 27:1).

In contemporary terms, David must have thought, “Better Red than dead.” David fled to the Philistines because he didn’t believe God could spare his life any other way.

David’s actions were based upon pragmatism rather than on principle. He was willing to make an alliance with Israel’s enemies in order to feel safe and secure. The Philistines who once fled from David, the warrior of Israel (1 Sam. 17:50-52), were now David’s allies to whom he looked for protection from Saul. In order to win Achish’s favor, David convinced him that he was conducting raids upon Israelite towns, while actually he was attacking the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites (27:8-12). David even told Achish that he would fight with him against the Israelites (28:1-2) which it appeared he was willing to do until a protest was raised by the Philistine commanders (29:1-5).

These events provide a backdrop for David’s predicament in 1 Samuel 21. In all previous incidents, violence and deception seem to have been more the rule than the exception. In continued flight from Saul David left Judah for Gath, the home town of Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4,23) and one of the five principle cities of the Philistines (cf. Josh. 13:3; 1 Sam. 6:17; 17:52). David apparently wished to remain anonymous, but such hopes were futile. He was soon recognized as the rightful king of Israel and a great military hero about whom songs were sung by the Israelite women (1 Sam. 21:11). These things were all reported to Achish, king of Gath.

The superscription to Psalm 56 suggests that David was placed under house arrest. David probably wondered if he was doomed to spend his life as the prisoner of Achish. After all, Israel and the Philistines were enemies and at war as nations. David was the enemy’s king (v. 11), or at least was going to be. And David was the one who had put their home-town hero Goliath to death. Things did not look good for David. It is not without reason that we are told, “David took these words to heart, and greatly feared Achish king of Gath” (v. 12).

An ingenious plan then came to David’s mind. Concealing his sanity, David began to manifest the symptoms of a lunatic. He scribbled on the walls and drooled down his beard (v. 13). How could such a maniac possibly pose a threat to Achish? In his present state of mind David would not be an asset to Achish in any armed conflict with Israel (cf. v. 15; 29:1ff.). The result was that David departed, not voluntarily as 22:1 might allow, but by force. The superscription to Psalm 34 indicates that this Philistine king “drove him away.”

I do not find it possible to praise David for the deception which characterized his actions while fleeing from Saul (cf. also 1 Sam. 27:8-12). Neither can I excuse David’s fraudulence in these events on the grounds of situational ethics, reasoning that in this “time of war” deceit was allowable.110 While Kidner attempts to minimize the wrong done here by referring to David’s deception as “abject clowning,”111 I find this an inadequate explanation. Let us be honest; this is not the same kind of “deception” we practice when we leave a light on in the house at night, allowing the burglar to conclude that we are home. This was deliberate lying. David’s actions, or at least some of them, were wrong. Not only are we hard-pressed to praise David for his cunning, we are caused to wonder how it is possible to praise God for David’s deliverance as Psalm 34 urges us to do. How can we possibly take seriously the instruction which David gives in the psalm? How are we to harmonize the situation of 1 Samuel 21:10-15 with the words of Psalm 34?

The solution to our problem is not to be found in the Book of 1 Samuel. It is not even to be found in Psalm 34. The key to our dilemma is contained in Psalm 56, which begins with these words: “For the choir director; according to Jonath elem rehokim. A Mikhtam of David, when the Philistines seized him in Gath.”

A look at Psalm 56, apparently based on the same event in David’s life, will help us to see the folly of David’s fears from which God delivered him: “When I am afraid, I will put my trust in Thee. In God, whose word I praise, in God I have put my trust; I shall not be afraid. What can mere man do to me?” (Ps. 56:3-4, cf. also vv. 10-11).

In 1 Samuel 21:12 we read: “And David took these words to heart, and greatly feared Achish king of Gath.” It was David’s fear of Saul that prompted him to flee to Gath to seek the protection of the Philistines (cf. 1 Sam. 27:1). It was David’s dread of man which caused him to deceive others with his lips (e.g. 1 Sam. 20:5-6; 21:1-2, etc.). It was David’s panic that led him to the conclusion that he must feign madness before Abimelech if he were to survive. Psalm 56 focuses on David’s fears, which prompted him to flee from Judah and to seek to preserve his life by deception. In Psalm 56 I believe David came to see his problem as that of fearing man rather than God. With a renewed trust in God (a fear of God), David now realizes that “mere man” (vv. 4, 11) can do nothing against him while God is his defense (vv. 3-4, 9-11).

It is my opinion that the sequence of events recorded in 1 Samuel 21 and Psalms 34 and 56 was something like this: Out of fear of Saul, David fled to Gath. He attempted to live in that city without revealing his identify, but was soon discovered (cf. 1 Sam. 21:11). When Achish learned of David’s identity and reputation as a soldier, he seized him (superscription, Psalm 56). Under house arrest, David began to ponder his situation and realized he was in grave danger (cf. 1 Sam. 21:12). David acted as though he was insane and was expelled from Gath. The king looked back upon these events at a point in time and came to understand that he had acted out of the fear of man and not out of the fear of God (cf. Psalm 56:3-4, 10-11). He was humbled before God and wrote Psalm 56 as his confession and vow of trust. Finally, Psalm 34 was penned to praise God for His deliverance (in spite of his deception and sin) and to teach the principles pertaining to the “fear of the Lord” which David had learned through this painful experience.

Psalm 34 must therefore be interpreted in light of the additional revelation of Psalm 56. We need not attempt to excuse David’s sin, because he confessed it and expressed his renewed trust in God. When we read Psalm 34 we understand that it was written by the same man who has already acknowledged his sin and is forgiven. The trust of which David speaks in Psalm 34 is that which he reaffirmed in Psalm 56. The key to our understanding of the relationship of Psalm 34 to 1 Samuel 21 is that David was forgiven and renewed as a result of his experience described in Psalm 56.

It should be noted that Psalm 34 is an acrostic, or alphabetical psalm, with the first word of each verse (including the superscription) beginning with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Other psalms, such as 25, 119 and 145, are also acrostics. This form served as a poetic device, which among other things, may have aided in the memorization of the psalm. Since much of the psalm takes the form of wisdom literature, it is not unusual that this form would be employed considering the subject matter of the psalm.

A Promise of Praise (34:1-3)

Psalm 34:1-3 1 A Psalm of David when he feigned madness before Abimelech, who drove him away and he departed. I will bless the LORD at all times; His praise shall continually be in my mouth. 2 My soul shall make its boast in the LORD; The humble shall hear it and rejoice. 3 O magnify the LORD with me, And let us exalt His name together. (NASB)

David begins this psalm with a vow, or a promise: “I will bless the Lord at all times; His praise shall continually be in my mouth” (v. 1). Here David promises to persistently praise His God. His praise, while based upon a specific event in his life, is ongoing. It should be understood that David is not promising a marathon praise session, but rather is committing himself to the praise of God at every opportunity and in the midst of various states of mind, spirit, and body. Just as we are to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17)—to pray consistently and in all circumstances—David promises to praise without ceasing.

While verse one stresses the frequency of David’s praise, the second verse reveals the focus of that praise. His soul will “make its boast in the Lord” (v. 2a). David does not dwell on his experience, nor even on his deliverance, but on his Deliverer. The Lord is both the subject and the object of David’s praise.

Verses 2b and 3 remind us of the fellowship of praise. Praise can be private, but that is not the kind of praise which the psalms practice and promote. When David publicly praised God at worship, he did so purposing to promote worship on the part of the entire congregation.112 Those who loved God, as David did, could rejoice with him. Paul’s teaching in Romans chapter 12 indicates that New Testament worship should be a sharing in the joys of fellow-Christians: “Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep” (Rom. 12:15).

David therefore urges his fellow-worshippers to join with him in magnifying the Lord so that His name will be corporately exalted (v. 3).

David’s Deliverance (34:4-7)

4 I sought the LORD, and He answered me, And delivered me from all my fears. 5 They looked to Him and were radiant, And their faces shall never be ashamed. 6 This poor man cried and the LORD heard him, And saved him out of all his troubles. 7 The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear Him, And rescues them. (NASB)

The praise of God in the psalms is based upon two central themes: (1) the acts of God and (2) the attributes of God. God’s works and His worth provide the basis for praise. In verses 4-7 David describes his deliverance, which is the basis for his praise and his teaching.

From the superscription to this psalm and the account in 1 Samuel 21, we know the details of the deliverance to which David is referring. If we did not have these additional details, we would hardly have concluded that David’s praise resulted from that incident with Achish. In view of the background to this psalm, several observations can be made here which will help us better understand the brief historical reference contained in verses 4-7.

(1) The fact that this psalm has a superscription which points us back to 1 Samuel 21 indicates that there was no attempt here to conceal David’s failures. Indeed, it would be safe to say that it was intended for us to interpret this psalm in the light of those failures. There is no effort to “cover up” for David to make him (or this psalm) look good.

(2) The brevity of the description of David’s deliverance should be understood in the light of David’s purpose for the entire psalm, which was to exhort others to share in the blessings of God’s protection and in His praise. David had purposed (and promised, cf. v. 1, 2a) to praise the Lord. While it would have been possible for him to embellish the account, it would have obscured the object of David’s praise, the Lord Himself. The more David minimized his personal experience and generalized God’s goodness, the more others could identify with him and join in his praise. If David’s flight to Gath and his relationship with these Philistines were less than commendable (as I believe was the case), then David would not wish to concentrate on his wrong doings but on God’s grace. There is little value in exploring David’s sin, but much to be gained from pondering God’s salvation.

(3) David is not stressing his deliverance from danger in these verses (which he encountered as a result of his own sin) as much as his deliverance from his fears. In verse 19 David writes that the afflictions of the righteous are many. The righteous must expect affliction. God does deliver His own out of some dangerous situations, just as He removed David from the hand of Achish. David’s fears were his greatest threat. Psalm 56 describes the change of heart David underwent, exchanging his fear of man for the fear of God.

(4) While verses 4-7 briefly account for David’s personal deliverance, they emphasize that what God has done for David, God also does for all His own. Notice the interweaving of the specific (David’s deliverance, vv. 4, 6) with the general (God delivers those who look to Him for salvation, vv. 5, 7). David exhorted all the righteous to praise God with him. While they can rejoice in David’s deliverance, they can do so even more enthusiastically when they are reminded that what God has done for David He has done (and will do) for them.

Verse 5 is most often understood as a reference to the countenance of those who look to the Lord for their deliverance.113 They look to Him, and they are never put to shame by being neglected or forsaken. Verse 7 changes the focus from the security and assurance of the saints to the instrument by which God’s protection is accomplished and guaranteed. This indeed is one of the few clear references to the “angel of the Lord” in this context in the Old Testament. Just as Elisha was confident of the protection of the angelic hosts when he and his servant were surrounded by the army of Syria (2 Kings 6), so David sees the “angel of the Lord” (whom I understand to be the pre-incarnate Christ) encamped about every saint.

Such protection is unseen under normal circumstances (e.g. 2 Kings 6:17), but nonetheless present. Only by the “eye of faith” can we be assured of divine protection. David was fearful of Achish because he had forgotten that his protector was ever-present. Those who look to God for their protection and deliverance must understand that deliverance may often take place in unexpected and unforeseen ways. In the Old Testament the Son of God was near at hand to save His people, but few were aware of it. In the New Testament the Son of God came to the earth in human flesh to dwell amongst His people and to save them, yet few recognized Him.

An Exhortation to Taste God’s Provision and Protection Personally (34:8-10)

8 O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him! 9 O fear the LORD, you His saints; For to those who fear Him, there is no want. 10 The young lions do lack and suffer hunger; But they who seek the LORD shall not be in want of any good thing. (NASB)

David has already exhorted those in the congregation to join with him in praising God as their provider and protector. Now he urges his fellow-Israelites to personally experience this protection and provision.

A significant shift occurs in verse 8. The psalm which is based upon a personal experience in David’s life begins with a commitment to praise God (vv. 1-3), then devotes only four verses to the deliverance of David (vv. 4-7, only two of which are specific). It then shifts from David’s experience to exhortation and instruction of others to experience the goodness of God in their lives. The remainder of Psalm 34 is addressed to others about their own relationship to God.

We can best understand verses 8-10 by answering two questions: (1) Who is David inviting to share his blessings? (2) What are the blessings which they are invited to enjoy with him? Let us consider these questions.

Those who are exhorted to “taste and see that the Lord is good” (v. 8a) are co-worshippers with David, Israelites who have come to worship God. They are not pagans, nor are they apathetic with regard to their attendance at worship. The blessings which they are encouraged to experience are those which David himself has experienced. The “goodness of the Lord” (v. 8a) is God’s protection (v. 8b) and His provision (v. 9b).

We can infer from verses 8-10 that the majority of David’s contemporaries did not experience the fullest blessings of God. After all, why exhort others to experience what they already possess? If the Israelites of David’s day were devout enough to regularly worship, why did they need to be encouraged to taste, to trust, and to fear the Lord? I would suggest that they, like many church-going people today, go through the rituals of worship, but fail to have the relationship with God which enables them to personally experience the provision and protection of God David had come to know.

Why did faithful, worshipping Israelites not know God’s love and care as they should? I believe that the answer is briefly given in verse 10, and the solution is carefully explained in verses 11-22. The one who “takes refuge” in God (v. 8) is depicted by the Hebrew term geber, which means “the strong man,” “the mighty man.”114 The one who is really strong is the one who finds his strength in the Lord and not in himself. Those who have been delivered from their fear of man are those who have come to fear the Lord.

Verse 10 illustrates the principle underlying verses 8 and 9 and also the principle which will be expounded in the following verses. There are few animals as awesome and as powerful as the young lion. He is the epitome of strength, and yet in spite of its strength, the young lion does go hungry. As great as it may be, its strength is no guarantee of abundant provision. In contrast to the young lion who lacks in spite of his strength, those who seek the Lord (uprightly and out of weakness) are assured that they shall not lack “any good thing.” While we are not promised every thing we may want if we trust in the Lord, we are promised we will not lack “any good thing.”

The emphasis of verses 8-10 is to invite others to experience the same kind of blessings for which David is praising God. The assumption is that most of his fellow-Israelites are not experiencing these blessings, despite their religious heritage and their devotion to religious ritual. Like the young lions, they have trusted in their own strength and have not trusted in God, and thereby have suffered want. How then shall they enter into the fear of the Lord (v. 9) and thus taste and see (v. 10) the goodness of the Lord? Verses 11-22 answer this question in detail.

Instruction in the Fear of the Lord (34:11-22)

11 Come, you children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD. 12 Who is the man who desires life, And loves length of days that he may see good? 13 Keep your tongue from evil, And your lips from speaking deceit. 14 Depart from evil, and do good; Seek peace, and pursue it.

15 The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous, And His ears are open to their cry. 16 The face of the LORD is against evildoers, To cut off the memory of them from the earth. 17 The righteous cry and the LORD hears, And delivers them out of all their troubles. 18 The LORD is near to the brokenhearted, And saves those who are crushed in spirit.

19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous; But the LORD delivers him out of them all. 20 He keeps all his bones; Not one of them is broken. 21 Evil shall slay the wicked; And those who hate the righteous will be condemned. 22 The LORD redeems the soul of His servants; And none of those who take refuge in Him will be condemned. (NASB)

Observe the change in style in verse 11 from exhortation to instruction, from public praise to a kind of preaching.115 In a form nearly identical with that found in the Book of Proverbs, David begins to instruct men concerning one of the missing factors in their religion, one which has kept them from experiencing the blessings of God’s provision and protection—the fear of the Lord. The subject is introduced in verse 11. In verses 12-14 the results of a fear of God are described. Verses 15-18 depict the relationship which a fear of the Lord establishes. The rewards of a fear of the Lord are spoken of in verses 19-22. Let us consider each of these aspects of the “fear of the Lord.”

Verse 11 is an invitation to receive instruction concerning the “fear of the Lord”: “Come, you children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord.” The invitation in verse 11 is to “children” (literally, “sons”). As in Proverbs the teacher often addresses the student as his “son” (cf. Prov. 1:8, etc.). The fear of the Lord is not an ill-defined, illusive concept, but one which can be taught and known. It is not only subjective, but objective. In addition, the fear of the Lord is not merely academic, but is worked out in very practical terms.

David has already praised God for being good to him (vv. 1-7). He furthermore has urged his fellow-Israelites to taste and see that God is good to them (v. 8). The fear of the Lord is now presented as the prerequisite to seeing the goodness of the Lord. God’s goodness is not for all. David has experienced it, and he urges others to taste of it as well. However, God’s goodness is directed only toward those who fear Him.

While the definition of the “fear of the Lord” is more extensive than a few brief verses, David epitomizes the outworking of this fear in verses 13-14. The fear of the Lord is not merely learned; it is lived. Just as James taught that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:14ff.), David teaches that the fear of the Lord is manifested in very practical ways. In verse 13 we are taught that the fear of the Lord is to result in the control of our lips, a prominent theme in the Book of Proverbs.

It is most interesting that David should bring up the matter of deceit here, for that seems to have been a predominant characteristic of his life as he fled from Saul. He asked Jonathan to lie concerning his absence at Saul’s table (1 Sam. 20:1- 6). He lied to Ahimelech about the purpose of his visit, which resulted in the death of many innocent people (1 Sam. 2:1-2; 22:11-19). He sought to deceive the people of Gath about his identity and his military prowess (1 Sam. 21:10ff.). How, then, could David speak of putting aside deceit? How could he be so hypocritical as to teach on the very point in which he had failed?

As we have already seen, David is teaching us as one who has learned this truth the hard way. David is telling us that when he feared Achish more than God he was more concerned with pleasing Achish than he was with obeying God. Fearing God involves acting consistently with God’s character and His commands. Psalm 56 informs us that David learned this lesson the hard way from his experience at Gath. In verses 13 and 14 David is attempting to communicate what he himself had learned about deceit.

In verse 14 the fear of the Lord is spelled out in more general terms. Not only must we guard our mouth, speaking the truth rather than deceit, but we must also depart from evil and practice what is right. We must aggressively seek peace. David had failed here as well. He had asked Ahimelech the priest for Goliath’s sword (1 Sam. 21:8-9). Why would he possibly need a sword to pursue peace? Why did David angrily seek to kill Nabal and every male in his house (1 Sam. 25:21-22)? Finally, why was David willing to go to war with Achish against Israel (1 Sam. 28:1-2)? These examples show that David was not a peace-seeker. Once again, David failed to seek peace because he feared Achish more than God. Therefore he can honestly teach what he has learned: the fear of the Lord is inconsistent with evil.

We learn then that the fear of the Lord is no ethereal, academic matter. The fear of the Lord involves acting consistently with God’s character and with His commands. It means we must forsake deception, and we must speak truthfully. It means that we must cease pursuing evil and must pursue peace instead. The fear of the Lord not only involves doctrine, it implements it.

Verses 12-14 suggest that the fear of the Lord demands a response, while in verses 15-18 that fear is dependent upon a relationship. Verses 13 and 14 describe the behavior of one who fears the Lord; verses 15-18 depict the relationship between man and God which is based upon such belief and behavior. While we are told what God does on behalf of the righteous in this section, the primary emphasis falls upon why God acts on man’s behalf to save and to deliver him from his troubles.

The fear of the Lord is the basis of a relationship between God and man. God is described as being “near the brokenhearted” (v. 18). His eyes and ears are ever attentive to the cries of the righteous (vv. 15,17), while His face is against the wicked (v. 16). Several things characterize the righteous in these verses. While verses 13-14 describe the actions of the righteous, verses 15-18 emphasize their attitudes. The righteous trust in the Lord as evidenced by their cries to Him for deliverance (vv. 15, 17). In contrast to the pride and arrogance of the wicked, the righteous are humble and brokenhearted (v. 18). The bottom line is that the righteous are dependent upon God, looking to Him for deliverance rather than trusting in their own strength. I believe this is also a lesson David learned in Gath. Human ingenuity did not save David (i.e. acting insane); he was delivered by God’s grace in response to David’s humble petition for deliverance. David was saved in spite of his cleverness and because of God’s mercy, which moved Him to answer David’s cry for deliverance.

Verse 11 speaks of the fear of the Lord in terms of its beliefs; verses 13 and 14 focus on its behavior; verses 15-18 on its basis. In verses 19-22 David expands verse 12 by describing the benefits of the fear of the Lord.

In verses 19 and 20 the fear of the Lord is described as providing the righteous with protection and deliverance from the wrath of man. We dare not suggest in the light of verse 19 that God’s care promises us that the righteous will not suffer. God will keep us in our afflictions, and He will ultimately deliver us from all adversity. The extent of our protection is stressed in verse 20. While this verse may be related to Exodus 12:46 and ultimately fulfilled in the life of our Lord (John 19:36), it probably should be applied to the righteous in view of the context of Isaiah 38:13 (cf. also Num. 24:8). In Isaiah the expression describes the defeat and despair of one who has been overcome by adversity. David teaches that this will not be the case of those who fear the Lord.

The emphasis seems to shift in verses 21 and 22 from the tests and trials of life to the judgment of God. Those who fear the Lord are not only assured of God’s protection in the adversities of life, but are also kept from divine retribution and wrath. In contrast to the righteous, the wicked will be slain by evil, and those who hate the righteous will be condemned. These verses describe the destruction of the wicked from both sides of the coin. On the one side, the wicked are destroyed by their own wickedness. They suffer divine retribution, as we see from the Book of Proverbs: “So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, and be satiated with their own devices. For the waywardness of the naive shall kill them, and the complacency of fools shall destroy them” (Prov. 1:31-32).

On the other side, it is not simply fate which catches up with the wicked. God deals with the wicked because He is righteous and cannot overlook sin and also because He will not allow His righteous ones to be persecuted without finally executing justice on the evil-doers who oppress them. The wicked are “condemned” or “held guilty” (margin, NASB, v. 21).

Verse 22 is perhaps the most beautiful verse in this psalm for it assures us that while the wicked will experience retribution, the righteous will be redeemed: “The Lord redeems the soul of His servants; and none of those who take refuge in Him will be condemned” (v. 22). David knew that God not only saves men from temporal trials and tribulations, but that He saves men from their sins. The wicked will perish, but the souls of His servants are redeemed.

Please take note of something which is very important to the teaching of this psalm. The same word “condemned” is used in both verse 21 and verse 22. The wicked, we were told in verse 21, will be condemned. Those who take refuge in Him will not be condemned (v. 22). The word “condemned” assumes guilt in both instances. As the marginal note of the NASB informs us, it means to be “held guilty.” David intends for us to understand that both the wicked and the righteous are guilty. In the one instance the guilty are held guilty and are punished for their sins. In the other instance the guilty are redeemed and are not punished. The reason some are forgiven and others are not is that some “take refuge in Him” (v. 22), those who are “brokenhearted” and “crushed in spirit,” while others stubbornly resist God and “hate the righteous” (v. 21).

The word “redeems” is also important in verse 22, because it suggests that the forgiveness of those who take refuge in God is not without cost. From the New Testament teaching we know that we are redeemed, not by the shedding of the blood of animals under the Old Testament law, but by the shed blood of Jesus Christ (cf. Heb. 9:11-14; 1 Pet. 1:19). The important thing for us to remember is that some are saved, not because they are righteous, but because they have been redeemed, forgiven, and thus are no longer held accountable for their sins. Their sins have been paid for by Another.

This is especially important in regard to the historical background of Psalm 34. David was not delivered from the hand of Achish because of his righteousness but because of his relationship with God. David feared the Lord. When David sinned through his deception and violence, it revealed that he had allowed his fear of the Lord to wane, replacing it with the fear of man. God graciously delivered David, not due to his righteousness, but because of his relationship. In response to God’s merciful deliverance, David’s fear of God was renewed. As a result David not only could praise God, but he could also share what he had learned with others, urging them to experience the blessing of God in a richer and fuller way.

Conclusion

We should now be able to see the psalm beginning to come into focus. David’s actions in fleeing to Achish from Saul were not at all commendable. We need not make any effort to excuse or explain them. From our own experience we can readily understand why David would act in the way he did. David, under the pressure of the pursuit of Saul, had begun to weaken in his fear of the Lord and had come to fear men instead (in particular, Achish). This led to acts of deception for it was more important to David in his present state of heart to satisfy Achish than to please God.

David’s attitudes and actions in 1 Samuel 21 are remarkably similar to those of Abram, his forefather. Abram had not yet come to an adequate grasp of the power of God to provide and to protect him, even in spite of His promise in Genesis 12:1-3. When there was a famine in the land of Canaan, Abram feared that God could not provide for him, and so he fled from the land of promise to the land of Egypt (Gen. 12:10). Once in Egypt, Abram began to fear for his life because his wife Sarai was beautiful. He sought to protect himself by deceitfully telling the Egyptians she was his sister (and therefore eligible for marriage), not his wife. Graciously, God delivered Abram in spite of his sin, not because of it. It was only when Abram came to a more complete trust in God that he could offer up his son (his security in the ancient world) in faith, trusting in God to provide and protect. We need not minimize the sins of Abram or of David. God’s goodness is even greater when we recognize that God most often delivers us in spite of ourselves, and not because of our clever and cunning schemes.

We need not be surprised that David can praise God for his deliverance in Psalm 34 any more than we need be dismayed that he even goes on to teach us about personal and practical holiness. David could praise God because his heart was now right with God (as seen in Psalm 56). David could teach others about the fear of the Lord because he had come to understand it more fully from his own failures.

Psalm 34 should not distress us any more than should Psalm 32. David could praise God for the forgiveness of his sins (cf. vv. 1-7), and he could go on to teach others about following God, in spite of his sin with Bathsheba. He could teach with integrity because he had already dealt with his own sin in Psalm 51. From this psalm we learn that David had come to see the seriousness of his sin and had confessed it before God. In verses 3 and 4 of Psalm 32 we learn that David’s sin brought much pain and agony of soul. His sin was not taken lightly, either by God or by David, but once confessed David could praise God and exhort and instruct others.

Peter was a man very much like David in my estimation. Both seemed to be impulsive, and yet both had a heart for God. While God had purposed for Peter to become a leader of His church (cf. Matt. 16:17-19), He intended that a part of the process was to allow him to fail: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32).

I want to suggest to you that God is gracious. He has chosen to use fallible men to serve and to worship Him. God never takes our sin lightly, and we are warned of the dire consequences of sin, yet it is often through our failures that the greatest lessons of life are learned. We need not excuse David’s sins any more than we should attempt to excuse Peter. Yet what we can do is to praise God with them for His gracious deliverance. Furthermore, we should learn from these men that God is a gracious deliverer for us as well.

A friend and I were talking recently about some men in the ministry who somehow are able to live a double life—preaching the gospel on the one hand and yet living in immorality. I think that this Psalm helps to explain why some can live such a lie. They are hypocritical in their immorality because they have developed a pattern of hypocrisy. Because they are preachers and people hold them up as models, they feel that they cannot fail. Perhaps I should say, they conclude that they dare not admit that they fail. Those of us who are unwilling to admit that David sinned in his relationship with Saul and with Achish are certainly not willing to learn that Christian leaders fail, too. Consequently, our leaders, teachers, and ministers learn to live a lie. They give the appearance of having control over sin in their life, but they know they are weak. Having become conditioned to hypocrisy, when they fall into immorality they are inclined to continue to do what they have always done—play the role which people expect of them.

Please do not misinterpret my words here. I do not think we should be easy on sin or on sinners, including those of religious leaders. I am simply saying that we are unwilling to allow them to admit that they do fail, and so they become hypocritical. Neither do we want to be led by those who make mistakes. All of the leaders of the Old and New Testaments were men with “feet of clay.” We dare not demand more of men today. We need to be reminded that God does deliver us from our sins, if we but confess them and forsake them. The way to live righteously is not to ignore sin or to rationalize it, but to repent of it and to be restored. I pray that we may find the forgiveness and the restoration to fellowship and worship that David experienced and that he urges us to experience as well.

Do you desire length of days and a good life (v. 12)? Then learn from David that these things come from God to those who fear Him. “O taste and see that the Lord is good; how blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!” (v. 8).

The message is one from a sinner to sinners. I pray that you will “seek refuge” in the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Redeemer of mankind through His sacrificial death on the cross of Calvary. As believers, my prayer is that you and I will come to fear Him as we ought.

105 I must say “apparently” because the superscription of Psalm 34 tells us that David “feigned madness before Abimelech,” while in 1 Samuel 21 the name of the king of Gath is said to be Achish. As the marginal note of the NASB indicates, Abimelech may be the title of Achish. This, if so, would be similar to the title “Pharaoh” which was used by Egyptian kings. Cf. A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1982), p. 170.

Perowne’s remarks are both perplexing and disturbing: “No value can be attached to the superscription with its historical reference, because while it is borrowed from I Sam. xxi. 13 [14], Abimelech is substituted for Achish, which looks like a confusion with the narrative in Gen. xx. xxi.; and further, the contents of the Psalm do not very readily, or naturally, harmonise with the supposed circumstances.” J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Zondervan [reprint], 1976), I, p. 298.

Leupold has a more balanced and biblical approach: “He resorted to the dubious expedient of feigning madness (‘changed his behavior’ says the Hebrew idiom) in the presence of the king. It is quite obvious that the contents of the psalm neither prove nor disprove this claim. Yet it is scarcely likely that the editors that attached this heading to the psalm will have done so without some good reason. In fact, we need only the following two assumptions: 1) that the psalm was not composed until a reasonable time had elapsed to allow David to produce a well-balanced, objective treatment of the case; and 2) that the vv. 13ff. indicate that the deception practiced was not what helped the author, in fact, such efforts are to be thoroughly discountenanced.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1969), p. 278.

106 Those who are inclined to take the superscriptions to the psalms lightly must be reminded of this important fact, pointed out by Kidner: “In the Heb. text there is no break between these words and those which we normally print as the first line. Our custom of placing the title above the psalm, rather than as part of verse 1, is a matter of convenience, which does not alter its status as part of the text.” Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150 (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975), p. 391, fn. 1.

107 Some may find it perplexing to note that Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:3-4 and Mark 2:25-26 seem to suggest that David was not wrong to ask for this consecrated bread. I believe that our Lord was saying that David was right in asking for that bread and that Ahimelech was right in giving it to him. The principle involved here is that the Sabbath was given for man’s benefit, not for a detriment. To “break the Sabbath” by healing a man was to keep the spirit of the law, for the purpose of the law was to benefit man. God intended for man to rest from his labors and to have time for worship, but this did not forbid picking a few heads of grain (Matt. 12:1). All of this deals with the principle of the purpose of the law, which was to be a blessing to man. The matter of David’s deception is not the question debated here, nor does Jesus minimize David’s sin by failing to bring up this issue, which would only weaken His argument. To sanction the eating of the consecrated bread is not to sanction David’s deception.

108 It is an interesting aside to observe that while Saul lacked the diligence and commitment to wholly obey God’s command by putting to death Amalek and all he possessed (1 Sam. 15:3, 9), he zealously slaughtered those he felt were disloyal to him at Nob (1 Sam. 22:16-19). How diligent we can be in the pursuit of our own selfish ambitions, and how slothful we often are in the pursuit of God’s revealed will!

109 As I have considered David’s decisions during his flight from Saul I have come to a tentative conclusion, which I share with you for your study and meditation. Many of David’s “bad” decisions were made with the counsel of those who were wise and godly. Abigail was able to persuade David to exercise better judgment (1 Sam. 25). Gad, the prophet, instructed David to get out of Moab and to return to Judah (1 Sam. 22:5), yet David seemed to decide on his own to leave Judah and flee to Gath (1 Sam. 21:1). In 1 Samuel 19:18 David fled to Samuel, where he is not said to act violently or deceitfully, yet after Samuel died David seemed to make some serious mistakes (cf. 25:1ff.; 28:3ff.). Later on, the prophet Nathan helped to keep David in line. Truly “no man is an island.” Many of our mistakes are the result of decisions made independently, rather than with godly counsel (cf. Prov. 11:14; 12:15; 13:10; 15:22; 24:6).

110 You will understand this to be my personal opinion, but I think it is difficult to dispute. The problem which underlies our thoughts to the contrary is that we tend to glorify biblical characters too much. We want so much for them to be models that we close our eyes to the weaknesses, character flaws, and sins of these “giants of the faith.” But remember that all of those listed in the “Hall of faith” in Hebrews 11 had skeletons in their closets—skeletons, I might point out, which God told us were there. God does not glorify sin, but neither does He minimize or glass over it. In the words of the New Testament, these were truly men “with a nature like ours” (James 5:17).

111 Kidner, Psalms 1-72, p. 140.

112 The verb rendered “O magnify…” is an imperative which may not have the force of a command here so much as an exhortation. Cf. James M. Van Dine, “An Exegetical Study of Psalm 34” (unpublished Master’s thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas, 1974), pp. 29-30.

113 It is possible also to interpret verse 5 to mean that the righteous Israelites in the congregation look to David (rather than to the Lord) and are radiant and not put to shame since God has delivered him. Cf. Van Dine, pp. 33-38.

114 “… but the word for man here is a different one. It means properly a strong man, and suggests the thought that be he ever so strong in himself, man’s only true happiness is in dependence on Jehovah.” A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1982), p. 172.

115 This shift is reflected by Kidner’s titles. Verses 1-10 are entitled, “Rejoice with me!”; verses 11-12 “Learn from me.”

6. Psalm 73: The Suffering of the Righteous and the Success of Sinners

Introduction

My first occasion to preach from Psalm 73 resulted from a tragedy within our church family. The telephone awakened me in the early hours of the morning. The voice on the other end of the line was that of a friend, whose words were enough to shock me out of my slumber. “I hate to bother you at this hour of the night, Bob, but I just discovered that my wife beside me here in bed is dead.”

She was only 28 years old, a godly woman and a devoted wife and mother. There was no apparent cause for her death at the time, nor has there been any medical explanation to this day. It was her husband’s employer whose comment caused me to turn to our text of Scripture for the funeral message. He said something like this: “Why is it that the good always die young?”

The fundamental question underlying Psalm 73 is, “How can a good God allow the righteous to suffer?” This question has puzzled saints and pleased skeptics over the centuries. This psalm and the question with which it deals is extremely important to us, both for the purpose of apologetics (defending our faith) and in order to preserve our faith in the midst of life’s trials. Many Christians today seem to think that faith in God comes with a guarantee of freedom from adversity. In fact, too many of our evangelistic appeals are tainted with the false promise (implied or stated) that coming to faith in Christ will deliver men from their trials in life. When young Christians come to the realization that this is not so, their faith is sometimes severely shaken.

The suffering of the saints and the prosperity of the wicked is an issue which is frequently addressed in the Word of God. We find the Book of Job dealing explicitly with this matter. We come face-to-face with it again in Psalm 73. In each passage of Scripture the issue is considered from a slightly different perspective.116 The unique contribution of Psalm 73 is that it deals with suffering not so much on the level of defending God as defining good.

The question, “How can a good God allow the righteous to suffer?” reveals several fallacies in our thinking. The first is the assumption that suffering is always evil and therefore irreconcilable with God’s goodness. The second is a failure to understand righteousness, so far as it relates to the saint, the true child of God. In answer to the problem of pain, this psalm forces us to take another look at our definition of good, lest we accuse God of being the author of evil by allowing us to suffer. Let those who suffer look to this psalm for a word of instruction.

Psalm 73 divides nearly evenly into two parts. Verses 1-15 depict the trial of the psalmist’s faith when he observes the blessing of the wicked. Verses 16-28 describe the triumph of Asaph’s faith, when he turns from protest to praise, from doubt to the declaration of the goodness of God.

Faith Tested (73:1-15)

1 A Psalm of Asaph. Surely God is good to Israel, To those who are pure in heart! 2 But as for me, my feet came close to stumbling; My steps had almost slipped. 3 For I was envious of the arrogant, As I saw the prosperity of the wicked. 4 For there are no pains in their death; And their body is fat. 5 They are not in trouble as other men; Nor are they plagued like mankind. 6 Therefore pride is their necklace; The garment of violence covers them. 7 Their eye bulges from fatness; The imaginations of their heart run riot. 8 They mock, and wickedly speak of oppression; They speak from on high. 9 They have set their mouth against the heavens, And their tongue parades through the earth.

10 Therefore his people return to this place; And waters of abundance are drunk by them. 11 And they say, “How does God know? And is there knowledge with the Most High?” 12 Behold, these are the wicked; And always at ease, they have increased in wealth. 13 Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure, And washed my hands in innocence; 14 For I have been stricken all day long, And chastened every morning. 15 If I had said, “I will speak thus,” Behold, I should have betrayed the generation of Thy children. (NASB)

The Psalmist’s Affirmation of Faith (v. 1)

Several years ago a funeral service was conducted for a young boy who has been tragically killed. In the service a song was included which was said to be the boy’s “affirmation of faith.” The name of the song was “Zippidy Doo-Dah.” What a far cry this is from the affirmation of faith of Asaph in verse 1: “Surely117 God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart.” Here, Asaph declares the truth on which his faith is founded as well as the truth which troubles his faith. The faith of the saints has always been rooted in the firm conviction of God’s existence and the assurance that He rewards those who diligently seek Him. “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Heb. 11:6).

In one sense, verse 1 is the conclusion of the matter. Asaph believed that God existed, that He was good, and that He was sovereign. In another sense, however, this verse was the basis of the psalmist’s problem. If God exists, and He is good so as to reward the righteous, and He is all-powerful, totally in control of His creation, then why is it that in God’s world the wicked seem to be doing better than the righteous? Aren’t the facts inconsistent with Asaph’s faith? How can God be good to the pure in heart if observation convinces us that sinners succeed and saints suffer?

This is a serious spiritual issue and one that has precipitated widely diverging explanations. The atheist answers by explaining that there is no God. The cynic says that there is a God, but denies that He is good. Life is just one of God’s cruel jokes. The liberal believes that there is a God who is loving, good, and kind. He explains suffering by denying the sovereignty of God. God is all-good, but not all-powerful. As a liberal preacher once said in the funeral message he delivered for a young wife and mother who died of cancer, “I am convinced that it was not the will of God for this woman to die.” He believed in God’s existence and His goodness, but not in His greatness. If it was not God’s will for that woman to die, and yet she did die, God must have been willing, but not able, to spare her from death.

A biblical faith does not require nor permit us to deny any of the attributes of God. We maintain not only that God exists, but also that He is good and great, a rewarder of the righteous and a judge of the wicked. How, then, do we explain the problem of the suffering of the saints and the success of sinners? The psalmist takes us through the steps of his personal struggle in verses 2-28, from the low point of his doubts and protest to the pinnacle of his renewed devotion and praise.

The Psalmist’s Two Problems (vv. 2-3)

I am deeply impressed by the honesty with which Asaph describes his trek through the “slough of despond.” His dismay is the result of two problems: the first is theological; the second is personal. The first concerns the apparent departure of God from His covenant promise to bless the righteous and curse the wicked. The second is Asaph’s personal struggle with envy concerning the lifestyle of the wicked.

The first problem which Asaph describes in verses 2 and 3a is his personal spiritual turmoil. In poetic terms Asaph describes his frame of mind and heart as precarious: his feet had almost slipped and he had nearly lost his footing (v. 2). The spiritual stability of the psalmist had been shaken. We might say in our own idiom, “he had nearly lost his grip.” The cause of this instability is identified as “envy” in verse 3.

Asaph’s confession is crucial because it is intended to qualify his description of the wicked which follows. Everything the psalmist saw, and over which he agonized, was colored by his own sinful attitude of envy. It is one thing for us to observe sinners who are arrogantly flaunting their prosperity, and for us to be vexed by their wickedness. The righteous should be grieved by sin, even as “righteous” Lot “was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men” (2 Pet. 2:8, cf. also v. 9). But Asaph was consumed with greed, not grief. Asaph was not distressed so much by the sin of the successful as he was by the success of the sinful. He was like the prodigal son’s brother (cf. Luke 15:28-30), who was angered to think that sin could be so enjoyable and that his righteousness seemingly profited him so little.

We can easily deceive ourselves by becoming distraught over the wrong things. Besides this, we can be grieved by the right thing (sin) for the wrong reasons (envy, rather than purity). This is why we are instructed, “Do not fret because of evil men. Or be envious of those who do wrong” (Ps. 37:1).

It is indeed difficult to see life clearly through our own tears of self-pity. Even though the wicked do seem to prosper in this life, the description which follows in verses 4-12 is a distorted one. It was not correct for Asaph to conclude that all the wicked prospered or that all the prosperous were wicked. Not all the wicked are wealthy, and not all the wealthy are wicked. People with sinful attitudes are hardly able to judge others objectively. As our Lord put it, those with a plank in their own eyes have trouble seeing a speck of sawdust in the eye of another (Matt. 7:3-5).

The second problem which troubled Asaph was the “prosperity” of the wicked (v. 3b, AV, NASB, NIV). I do not dispute the rendering “prosperity” here, but it hardly conveys to us all that the original term, shalom, meant to the Israelite of that day. This is a term pregnant with religious significance,118 which we must pause to consider, for it is at the heart of the psalmist’s struggle.

The root meaning of shalom was “completion” or “fulfillment.” Quite often the term was used of “peace” in the sense of a cessation of war or hostility (e.g. 1 Kings 4:25). Shalom implied wholeness and harmony, not only a mere absence of hostility. It was thus used to describe harmonious relationships (e.g. 1 Kings 5:12). Often shalom was used of physical well-being, that is, of good health. It is in this context that it became used both as a greeting and a farewell (e.g. Judg. 19:20; 1 Sam. 25:6, 35), implying a blessing. In modern Hebrew shalom is used for both “hello” and “goodbye.”119

To the Israelite, shalom summarized in one word the benefits or blessings which were promised in God’s covenant with Israel. Nearly two-thirds of its occurrences relate to the fulfillment which comes as a result of God’s activity in covenant with His people and as a result of righteousness (cf. Isa. 32:17). Consequently, we find the expression “covenant of peace” (Num. 25:12; Isa. 54:10).120

While shalom was viewed primarily as God’s material blessing,121 this did not exhaust its meaning. God was viewed as the source of Israel’s “shalom” (cf. 1 Chron. 22:9-10). He would also speak words of “shalom” to His people (Ps. 85:8). This “spiritual” dimension of the concept of “shalom” was, at first, quite general. The priests, for example, were instructed to pronounce this blessing on the people: “The Lord bless you and keep you; The Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you: The Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace” (Num. 6:24-26).

As time went on, the prophets began to speak of Israel’s “shalom” in much more specific terms, for ultimately the blessings of God would be realized through the Messiah, the Prince of Peace, whose sacrificial death would bring “shalom” to men.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, And the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end (Isa. 9:6-7).

But he was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The punishment that brought us peace was upon him, And by his wounds we are healed (Isa. 53:5).

And while the prophets of God promised that God would establish “shalom” in His good time, the false prophets spoke of “peace” as well, but not based on righteousness, faith, and obedience:

“They dress the wound of my people As though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, When there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14; cf. 14:13; 28:9; Ezek. 13:16).

As seen from the theological perspective of the Old Testament saint, we can understand why Asaph would have been perplexed by the prosperity of the wicked. From his point of view the covenant blessings of God were being poured out on the wicked, while divine chastening was the lot of the righteous. As he saw it, sinners were being blessed and saints cursed. It was as though God had turned His covenant upside-down. No wonder Asaph was puzzled!

The Success of Sinners (vv. 4-12)

These verses describe the three characteristics of the wicked which have caused the psalmist great consternation: (1) their well-being or their “shalom” (vv. 4-5); (2) their wickedness (vv. 6-9); and (3) their wide-spread popularity (vv. 10-11). Let us consider these three characteristics and how they caused Asaph to contemplate a course of action (vv. 12-14) that would have been spiritually disastrous.

Verses 4 and 5 describe the prosperity, the “shalom,” of the wicked, which he mentioned in verse 3. His definition of “shalom” here is one that is almost entirely materialistic. With regard to their physical well-being, the wicked are described as having sleek and healthy bodies (v. 4). Depending on the correct reading of the text,122 we find that while the wicked are not exempted from death, even their passing appears to be relatively free from struggle and pain. The affluence of the wicked enables them to care for their bodies so that they are almost immune to the maladies common to mankind. In general, the wealthy wicked seem to live above the trials of life, which are nevertheless the plight of the righteous (v. 5). In short, the wicked are experiencing the kind of “shalom” which Asaph believed should be experienced only by the righteous.

The psalmist was not an ascetic who believed material prosperity was evil and therefore to be avoided. As a devoted Israelite, he is not condemning prosperity, but rather protesting God’s choice of who should prosper. The Old Testament frequently promised prosperity to the pious (cf. Deut. 28:1-14). It also warned of divine judgment (cursing) when God’s law was ignored (cf. Deut. 28:15-68). On the basis of these promises, the psalmist expected that he should have been one of those described in verses 4 and 5, rather than the wicked. Here is where the envy of Asaph is evident (cf. v. 3). His protest was therefore two-fold: first, in response to his own suffering, he cried, “Why me, Lord?” Second, in response to the prosperity of the wicked, he complained, “Why them?” Asaph had nothing against owning a Rolls Royce; it was just that he wanted to be the one in the driver’s seat rather than his ungodly neighbor.

In verses 6-9 it is the wickedness of the wealthy which troubles Asaph. If he had difficulty with the comfort and well-being of those described in verses 4-5, he was even more distressed because the wealthy were also wicked. Then, as now, the mentality was, “if you’ve got it, flaunt it.” If these well-to-do wicked did not take their prosperity to be a sign of divine blessing, at least they interpreted their success in life as an evidence God either did not know or did not care about their sinful means of gaining wealth. Perhaps they reasoned that He was not able to do anything about it. The result was that pride and evil plans were promoted. The pride of the wicked was openly displayed. The psalmist described it as a necklace which was worn in the Ancient Near East as a sign of status (cf. Gen. 41:42).

In the Old Testament, as in the New, wealth was not only a blessing, but a stewardship. The wealthy had an obligation to the less fortunate. The wicked wealthy whom Asaph observed had none of the compassion which was to be expected. Instead of using their success and status as a means of helping others, the wicked used it as a tool for gaining even further riches, at the expense of the poor. The psalmist looked at the callousness of the wealthy and saw that they were not content with what they had but continually schemed to gain more and more (v. 7). Compassion was set aside and oppression was the rule of the day (v. 8).

The pride of the wicked was not merely reflected in their attitudes and actions toward men. The wicked became so bold that they openly blasphemed God by elevating themselves to god-like levels (v. 9; cf. Isa. 14:13-14). As Kirkpatrick put it,

The wealthy were not only wicked, they were also popular and prominent. They had little trouble gathering a large following, which was yet another source of the psalmist’s distress. Verses 10 and 11 are difficult to interpret, consequently there is disagreement among Bible students as to exactly what is said. While the specifics of the expressions used here may be uncertain, the overall activity is clear and, I think, a matter of general agreement.123 The wicked who prospered gathered others about themselves who had also tasted the “good life” (they had “drunk waters in abundance,” v. 10) and wished to imitate the wicked both in principle and practice. Thus, they went so far as to say, “How can God know? Does the Most High have knowledge?” (v. 11).124

No wonder Asaph was so distressed! He had concluded that the wicked were prospering not only materially and physically, but also in numerical growth. With Elijah-like reasoning, Asaph concluded that the righteous were being outnumbered. Asaph seems to have said within himself, “I alone am left” (cf. 1 Kings 19:10).

I believe it is important for us to know just who these “wicked” are. Until now, I had always thought of them as pagans—Gentiles. The wicked, I thought, were ungodly foreigners who surrounded the Israelites, who persisted in their sinful ways, and who not only got away with it, they got ahead with it. I have now come to the conclusion that this is not the case. Let me point out some of the reasons why this cannot be.

(1) Nowhere in this psalm are the ‘wicked’ called by any name which would distinguish them as Gentiles. “Why do the nations rage And the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers gather together Against the Lord and against his Anointed One (Ps. 2:1-2). To my knowledge, there is no clear identification of the “wicked” as non-Israelites.

(2) Verse one seems to focus on God’s relationship to Israel, rather than on mankind in general. The psalm begins, “Surely God is good to Israel.” Asaph is not really interested here with God’s relationship to pagans, but to His people. The blessings and the cursings of Deuteronomy 27 and 28 are primarily directed toward Israel, not others.

(3) The theology reflected in verse 11 is not one that is pagan in origin, but it is decidedly that of an Israelite. When would a pagan refer to only one God, as opposed to many gods? It was Israel’s God who was known as “God” and the “Most High” (v. 11).

(4) The sins which Asaph depicts are not those of the surrounding nations, but those of wicked Israelites. From the superscription to this psalm we learn that Asaph is its author. We know that he was one of David’s three chief musicians, who played a significant role in directing the worship in the temple (cf. 1 Chron. 6:39; 15:16-19; 16:5, 7, 37; 25:1-2).

In the other psalms written by Asaph we see a distinction made between the surrounding nations which are Israel’s enemies and the wicked Israelites who are also a threat to Israel’s well-being. There are, then, the enemies without and the enemies within. In Psalms 74, 79, 80, 81 and 83 the enemies of Israel are the surrounding nations who would destroy Israel. They are called the nations (79:1,6,10), the adversary (74:10,18; 81:14), neighbors (80:6) and enemies (80:6; 81:14). In Psalm 83 the nations are listed.

In Psalms 50 and 82 the enemies within are described. In Psalm 50 God is portrayed as the judge of His people (50:4), who will condemn His people for their empty religious rituals. Their practices are an abomination to God (vv. 16-21). In Psalm 82 the wicked are actually the rulers and leaders of the nation who have not exercised their authority in righteousness. In Psalm 50 the unrighteous are called the “wicked” (50:16).

It is my conclusion that the wicked of Psalms 73, 50 and 82 are the same group—wicked Israelites. In part this is true because the term “wicked” is used of them, while other designations are employed for the foreign enemies of Israel. It should also be observed that the sins of which the “wicked” of Psalm 73 are accused are those characteristic of wicked Israelites, and not those of the pagans which are mentioned in Asaph’s other psalms.

It is the prosperity of wicked Israelites which brought such distress to Asaph, and I think I can understand why this would be true. Asaph, as best as I can tell, was a professional, full-time religious worker. In those days, the musicians were paid. Those who served in religious endeavors were supported by the tithes of the congregation. If the people of Israel were prospering and Asaph was not, it was because the people were not being obedient to God, not only in the way they obtained their wealth, but in their use of it.

Asaph’s vantage point was from the perspective of the choir loft. I can almost see him there in the temple, looking out over the congregation. They had healthy, well-fed bodies, fine clothes, and expensive jewelry. He had aches and pains, meager clothing, and no luxuries of life. He was serving God; they were not. It wasn’t fair! Doesn’t this help you to understand the agony of Asaph? The wicked were those very people who came to the temple to worship, but in a very perfunctory way. They gave lip service to their faith, but showed no genuine heart for God.

(5) Religious leaders of our Lord’s day almost perfectly fit the three-fold description of Asaph in Psalm 73. Asaph’s characterization of his fellow-countrymen as prosperous, proud, and popular is not difficult to accept when one applies these same criteria to New Testament times. The Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees were just like the wicked who caused Asaph such distress.

These religious leaders were certainly prosperous. We are told, for example, that it was the family of the high priest, a Sadducee, who owned the concession at the entrance to the temple which exchanged currency and sold sacrificial animals at exorbitant rates, turning the temple from a “house of prayer” to a “den of thieves” (cf. Matt. 21:13). We know also that the wealth of the Scribes and Pharisees was obtained by taking advantage of helpless widows (Matt. 23:14). And rather than to meet their obligations to others, legal technicalities were fabricated to preserve their wealth and indulge only themselves (Matt. 23:16-24; Mk. 7:11-12).

The religious leaders were not only prosperous, they were also proud. In Matthew 23 our Lord accused them of loving the place of honor at banquets and taking the chief seats in the synagogue (v. 6). They made a show of their religious activities to be seen by men (v. 5). And, worst of all, they took for themselves titles (Rabbi, Father, and Leader), all of which belonged to God (vv. 8-12).

Finally, the scribes and Pharisees were aggressive in seeking to lead men in their sinful ways. Jesus said to these religious leaders, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves” (Matt. 23:15). He then goes on to call these same men “blind guides” (v. 16). The people whose prosperity, pride, and popularity caused Asaph so much pain were the wicked within the nation Israel, those who called on the name of Yahweh, who worshipped in the temple, but whose hearts and lives were evil and proud. It is bad enough when the heathen, who do not even profess to trust in the one living God, flourish. It is pure agony however, when those who claim to know the God we serve, live in sin and yet prosper, or appear to profit.

Verse 12 summarizes the complaint of Asaph concerning the wicked: they were carefree and they continued to prosper, even in their wickedness. In short, the wicked in Israel enticed others to follow them and their evil example, and yet their lives were seemingly blessed with financial prosperity and physical well-being, a fact which seemed contradictory to the covenant God had made with Israel.

The Secrets of the Psalmist’s Soul (vv. 13-14)

I have chosen to title the theme of verses 13 and 14 in such a way as to emphasize a very important fact. The thoughts with which the psalmist toyed for a time were never shared until after he had seen how sinful they were. To put it more bluntly, Asaph knew when to keep quiet. He did not share the soul-stretching questions of his heart until after he had found the answer to them. How often, in the name of honesty (or, more piously, a “prayer request”) we share unsettling questions and problems, only to create difficulties for others. I am deeply impressed with the honesty of the psalmist on the one hand and his sense of discretion on the other. When the confession of his sins could aid his fellow-saints, he did so, but when this would only tempt others, he agonized alone, until he had the answer he sought.

Verses 13 and 14 give the conclusion toward which the evidence led Asaph. If God is not blessing the righteous and cursing the wicked, the very thing promised in the Old Testament Law (Deut. 27–28), then what was the good of being righteous? The cost of remaining pure was exceedingly high and the rewards for which Asaph had looked went to the wicked instead. Righteousness seemingly was not rewarded but punished. Such religion certainly appeared to be vain. It looked contradictory to both God’s covenant and common sense.

It should also be noted that this tempting thought with which Asaph wrestled was the presupposition of Satan:

“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face” (Job 1:9-11).

It is inconceivable that Satan was not involved in the temptation which Asaph was going through as he watched the wicked doing well and as he agonized in his own affliction.

The Catastrophic Consequences of Asaph’s Anticipated Actions (v. 15)

Having described the course of action with which Asaph was flirting in verses 13 and 14, the psalmist now describes the impact such a sinful response would have had on others. To have doubted God’s faithfulness and forsaken a godly life would have been a betrayal of Asaph’s brethren. As a religious leader he not only would have been responsible for his own sin, but he would also have encouraged others to walk in his steps. Just as sin would have devastated his ministry and his witness (v. 15), so his faithfulness and worship promoted his testimony and ministry among men (v. 28). Our actions have a profound impact on others.

Faith’s Triumph (73:16-28)

16 When I pondered to understand this, It was troublesome in my sight 17 Until I came into the sanctuary of God; Then I perceived their end. 18 Surely Thou dost set them in slippery places; Thou dost cast them down to destruction. 19 How they are destroyed in a moment! They are utterly swept away by sudden terrors! 20 Like a dream when one awakes, O Lord, when aroused, Thou wilt despise their form.

21 When my heart was embittered, And I was pierced within, 22 Then I was senseless and ignorant; I was like a beast before Thee. 23 Nevertheless I am continually with Thee; Thou hast taken hold of my right hand. 24 With Thy counsel Thou wilt guide me, And afterward receive me to glory.

25 Whom have I in heaven but Thee? And besides Thee, I desire nothing on earth. 26 My flesh and my heart may fail, But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. 27 For, behold, those who are far from Thee will perish; Thou hast destroyed all those who are unfaithful to Thee. 28 But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, That I may tell of all Thy works. (NASB)

The Perspective of Worship (vv. 16-20)

In verse 16 we come to a dramatic change of heart and mind where we move from the testing of Asaph’s faith to its triumph. The inner debate and doubting of the psalmist, as portrayed in verses 2-15 were the result of his efforts to resolve the problem by mere reason. Human reason could only lead Asaph to the conclusion that personal piety was profitless and painful. But suddenly in verse 16 there is a new perspective and a complete change in Asaph’s attitude. Instead of protest there is praise. What changed his outlook? The answer, I believe, can be summed up in one word—worship: “When I tried to understand all this It was oppressive to me Till I entered the sanctuary of God; Then I understood their final destiny” (vv. 16-17).

It was not a change of place that transformed Asaph’s outlook, but rather a change in his perspective and in his vocation. Asaph is now a man of worship. While God’s name was hardly mentioned in the first 14 verses (except in v. 1) other than on the lips of the wicked (v. 11), now Asaph is communing with God in worship.125 There is a dramatic change in the pronouns employed. In the first half of the psalm the wicked (“they” and “them”) are the object of Asaph’s attention, but in verses 15-28 God (“you”) is central. The exact nature of worship and its effect on Asaph’s heart is described in this second half of the psalm. Let us look carefully at worship’s composition and how it can transform the critic into a contrite and grateful saint.

First, worship reminded Asaph of his responsibility to the righteous (v. 15). Worship in ancient Israel was most often corporate, something done as a part of a community of worshippers. When Asaph came to worship he was not alone. There in the congregation were not only the wicked, whose prosperity had so troubled Asaph, but those who were righteous, the “generation of God’s children” (v. 15). To have adopted the attitude described in verses 13 and 14 and abandoned his faith would have been to tempt others to follow in his steps. Such a sin in the life of the saint is not only an offense to God, but also a stumbling block to fellow-believers. True worship reminds us that we cannot ignore our brethren. Indeed, we cannot worship God while we offend others (cf. Matt. 5:23-24). It is possible that Asaph has come to realize that these godly brethren are, themselves, far greater treasure than the meager material gains of the wicked.

Second, worship dissolved Asaph’s envy of the wicked by reminding and reassuring him of their ultimate destiny.126 Asaph had concluded that the wicked prospered and the righteous suffered, but this was a decision too hastily made. His conclusion had been reached on the basis of observations which were superficial. The fate of the wicked was viewed from a temporal perspective, not an eternal one. Asaph’s reasoning was based on human thinking, not on faith. While the wicked do prosper, their ultimate destiny is now viewed through the eyes of faith in accordance with the promises of God given in the Old Testament Scriptures.

The prosperity of the wicked can now be seen to be passing and precarious. If the psalmist’s footing was shaky (v. 2), that of the wicked is even more so (vv. 18-20). God has placed them on “slippery ground” (v. 18). In a moment’s time their prosperity will turn to peril and punishment (v. 19). God has chosen to delay His judgment, but once He is aroused, they will be despised and their momentary success will be seen like a passing dream, a mere fantasy.

The destiny of the wicked, rather than their immediate prosperity, served as a cure for the envy which Asaph had in his heart toward these evil-doers. While one might be tempted to envy the present ease of life in which they lived, who would possibly desire to share in their future condemnation? Looking only at the short-term they were an object of envy, but from a longer range view they were to be pitied. Worship, for Asaph, had brought the prosperity of the wicked into focus. Worship caused him to view life from an eternal perspective rather than merely an earthly one.

Self-Righteous Pity to Penitence (vv. 21-22)

Worship also gave Asaph a new perspective on himself. It dissolved false pride and brought about a penitent spirit. Underlying Asaph’s protest in verses 1-14 was a faulty assumption—that while the wealthy were wicked, he was righteous. Only a man who thought himself righteous could reason: “Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure; In vain have I washed my hands in innocence” (v. 13).

Asaph was convinced that he was a righteous man. If the prosperous were wicked and deserved to be punished, he was righteous and deserved to prosper.

But Asaph did not deserve God’s blessings for he too was a sinner. His problem was not different in kind, but only in degree, from that of the wicked he hoped to see suffer. Asaph had hinted at this in verse 3 when he indicated his attitude was one of envy, not grief. Before he went to God in worship, Asaph viewed himself as distinct from others whom he saw as more wicked than himself. When contrasted to these “sinners” he was righteous, much like the self-righteous Pharisee who compared himself with the publican in Luke 18:11. At worship Asaph was forced to view himself in comparison with God, not wicked men. Finally he honestly admitted that he too was a sinner. In his moments of inner struggle Asaph was upset and bitter, senseless and ignorant. He was like an animal (vv. 21-22). Worship forces us to look at ourselves as God sees us. Comparison to others is set aside.

The Advantages of Affliction (vv. 23-26)

At the outset of his struggle Asaph assumed that affliction was inappropriate for the righteous. Furthermore he believed that adversity was evil. If the consequence of sin is judgment and suffering, then how could adversity possibly have a beneficial effect in the life of the saint? The success of sinners and the suffering of saints was a problem too great for the mind of the psalmist to grasp; but when he worshipped God, Asaph came to understand the blessing adversity had been in his life. On the other hand he was able to see that affluence had been detrimental to the wicked.

Worship is, first and foremost, something spiritual. At worship, Asaph began to consider the spiritual dimension of life as opposed to the merely physical aspects. Asaph had, like most of his contemporaries, defined prosperity (“shalom”) only in material and physical terms. The wicked, he protested, had sleek and healthy bodies and they were free from life’s trials (vv. 4-5). But what he had failed to appreciate was the detrimental effect prosperity had on the spiritual lives of the wicked. Prosperity made the wicked even more greedy, violent, and oppressive (vv. 6-8). Worst of all, the prosperous became proud, even to the point of blasphemy (vv. 9-11).

Rather than bringing men closer to God, affluence only made men more independent and ungrateful. Prosperity led to spiritual complacency and even blasphemous pride.

Asaph’s affliction, while unpleasant, had the beneficial effect of drawing him closer to God. While there was an initial reaction of bitterness and complaint, he finally came to the point of worship and praise. Now, rather than dwelling on what material things he lacked, he delighted in the greatest blessing of all—having God as an intimate counselor and guide, a present and a future source of comfort and security (vv. 23-26).

The sufferings of the psalmist were not God’s hand of judgment, as Asaph had too hastily concluded, but His loving hand, a course in God’s school of suffering. He did not intend to drive Asaph away, but to draw him to Himself. In all of his trials God never left his side. He was guiding and guarding him throughout his ordeal. Asaph’s experience of God’s care in the present brought assurance of His continued care and fellowship in the future, no matter how limited his understanding of this might be.

The faithfulness of God in the midst of present trials is further evidence of God’s faithfulness in the future. This is what Paul spoke of in the fifth chapter of his epistle to the Romans: “

Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us (Rom. 5:3-5).

This is why Asaph was able to say with confidence that although suffering may be his portion in life—his “flesh and his heart may fail”—nevertheless, God will be sufficient for his every need (v. 26). God was in the present, and He would be in the future, Asaph’s “refuge and strength, an ever present help in trouble” (Ps. 46:1).

Worship has reminded Asaph of yet another important truth. God has never promised to keep His people from suffering, but He has promised to be with His people in suffering.

The Psalmist’s Summation (vv. 27-28)

God’s promised blessings and His cursings are now seen in an entirely different light, therefore Asaph concludes the psalm by summarizing the peril of the wicked and the blessings of the righteous. The wicked, those who are not near to God (v. 27), will ultimately perish. No matter how comfortable they now seem to be, destruction is their final destiny. The God who is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart (v. 1), is also the God who will destroy those who are unfaithful to Him (vv. 18-20, 27). Their momentary ease of life is no longer the object of Asaph’s envy, but their final destiny is a sobering reality.

If the blessing of God had previously been measured only in terms of material prosperity and ease of life, it is now viewed as being, in the words of one hymn, “near to the heart of God” (v. 28). This was the case with Asaph (vv. 23-26) and so he can conclude the psalm with the confident statement that he has made God his refuge and that he will publicly praise God for His wondrous deeds, which may include sending adversity into the life of His loved ones (v. 28).

Conclusion

Do you see how Asaph’s thinking has radically changed? He began by complaining that the wicked were prospering and that he, as one of the righteous, was being punished. He believed that suffering is evil and that since God is good He cannot allow affliction to touch the life of the righteous. “Good” was somehow inseparably intertwined with material prosperity and physical well-being. But worship taught Asaph that the ultimate good in life is knowing God. If knowing God is the highest good in this life and in eternity, then we must conclude that whatever draws us away from Him is evil and whatever draws us to Him is good. Since affluence had only promoted the wickedness of the ungodly and adversity caused Asaph to draw more closely to God, his initial thinking is revealed to be reversed. The suffering he shunned was actually a blessing, while the success he sought was really a curse.

In the light of this principle—that affliction is often a gift of God—I am greatly distressed by an all-too-common theme which is prominent in Christian circles, a theme which is almost identical to the thinking which caused Asaph such great agony of soul. It is the mentality that God’s blessings always come in the form of financial success, material abundance, and physical well-being. We are led to believe that the righteous can claim such things as their rightful possessions. We are also told that when we experience financial setbacks or physical illness it is because we lack the faith to possess what is ours in Christ.

Such theology can only be maintained by a selective reading of the Bible. Some choose to study only those passages which promise us the “good things” of life, but systematically ignore those which speak of suffering and trials. They convince themselves that a good God would never cause his saints any sorrow. That, my friend, is not what the Bible teaches. It is, rather, a doctrine which Satan himself originated and which he actively promotes in the world today. He suggested to Eve that a good God would never withhold such a pleasant and attractive thing as the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He was certain that Job would not serve God unless God continued to prosper him. He even had the audacity to suggest to the Lord Jesus that suffering was inappropriate for Him when he sought to tempt Him at the outset of His ministry (cf. Matt. 4:1-11). Jesus responded that obedience is more important than personal satisfaction (Matt. 4:4) and that God alone must be worshipped, no matter how appealing immediate pleasure or success may seem (4:10).

Nowhere did the Old Testament teach that material prosperity was the inevitable result of righteousness. Adversity was a tool God used as freely in those days as in our own. Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, not because of his sin, but because of their contempt for his righteousness. The Israelites spent 400 years in captivity in Egypt, not so much as a punishment for sin as a preparation for future blessing. And the difficulties Israel experienced in the wilderness were God’s school of discipline, to teach His people obedience and to develop their faith in Him as a trustworthy Father.

Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years. Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you (Deut. 8:2-5).

Many scholars believe that the Book of Job may be the oldest book of the Bible. If this is true then we should realize that one of the first truths God communicated to man was that suffering may be used of God to accomplish His purposes (such as providing instruction for Satan, Job 1–2) and to strengthen the faith of His saints (Job 42:1-6). While the saints may suffer temporarily, they can be assured of God’s ultimate blessings (Job 42:10-17).

Anyone who wishes to think that God’s people have the right to expect a trouble-free life of ease and prosperity apparently read the Scriptures superficially and have an inadequate grasp of the process God uses to conform us to the image of His Son. Suffering is one of the central themes in the New Testament Book of Hebrews. In chapter 10 the author commended the Hebrews for their diligence in spite of their suffering and persecution, urging them to continue and to endure in the present (10:32-39). In chapter 11 we are reminded that the heroes of the Old Testament were men and women who endured suffering, confident in God’s promise of future blessings.

All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them (11:13-16).

The material blessings which these saints of old sought, they did not receive in their lifetime. Their hope and trust was in the promise of God and they were willing to look beyond the grave for its fulfillment. The delay, we are told, was so that we too might share in their blessings:

And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect (11:39-40).

In chapter 12 of this great Book of Hebrews we are reminded that one of the proofs of sonship is that we, like Israel of old, will be taught in the school of discipline. Suffering is not a denial of God’s love, but a demonstration of it, for it prepares us for the blessings for which we look, just as it did the saints of old. This is the lesson which Asaph had to learn in order to appreciate the adversity God had brought into his life.

It is not hard to understand the strong materialistic emphasis of the Old Testament saint, but it is nearly as pronounced today as it was then. For example, what comes to your mind when you think of heaven? Probably you think of the streets of gold, the absence of sorrow and pain and tears, and the great joy we will experience. I know of songs which speak of heaven in terms of the absence of war or of the possession of a pair of shoes. None of these descriptions is really wrong, but they are all distorted. You see, we are predisposed to think of heaven in material terms just as the saint of olden times thought of his blessings in such ways. Heaven, however, is not merely the absence of all those things which we think of as painful, nor is it merely the presence of what we would call pleasure. Heaven is, first and foremost, dwelling eternally in the presence of God and worshipping Him.

Psalm 73 has underscored a very important truth concerning our witness. We can state this truth as a principle: envy is the enemy of evangelism. Both halves of this Psalm end with a statement concerning the effect of Asaph’s attitudes and actions on evangelism. To have given up godliness as vain would have been to betray his brethren, to encourage others to walk in an ungodly way (v. 15). To worship God and find Him to be all sufficient is to enable one to encourage others to trust and obey God (v. 28).

It was only as I reconsidered verses 15 and 28 that I saw how important this principle is in the Psalm. It is very difficult to evangelize those whom we envy. To envy the wicked is to desire to be like them. Worldliness is devastating to our witness because we desire to be like the wicked more than we desire that they be like us. We want what they have more than we want them to have what is ours. It is only when Asaph sees the wicked in the light of eternity that he can be fervent in his witness. Their prosperity is fleeting and their destruction is sure. They may have some passing pleasures, but they do not have the blessing of knowing God and having intimate fellowship with Him. Let us learn this lesson well. We will never be effective evangelists when in our hearts we envy the way of the wicked.

Whenever we reduce the blessings of God to physical and material well-being we put ourselves in the same place that Asaph was when he observed the prosperity of the wicked and the suffering of the righteous. When we think of heaven as prosperity, we look at life on earth as hellish, for here we find suffering and trials. But when we view heaven as everlasting fellowship with God in uninterrupted intimacy, then we realize that we can experience a part of heaven here and now, even in the midst of adversity. In fact, it is adversity which lessens the pull of this life and its pleasures and intensifies our desire for heaven (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16–5:10). Let us seek to keep our view of heaven in biblical focus, not thinking as much about the gifts as the Giver, with whom we shall dwell forever.

Finally, let this psalm instruct us concerning the vital role which worship should play in our lives. If there was one turning point in Asaph’s change from temptation to triumph it was his worship experience (v. 17). At worship, Asaph gained a right perspective about himself and about others. He stopped focusing on the present, passing pleasures of the wicked, and pondered their ultimate and certain judgment. He ceased to consider himself as righteous, compared to the “wicked” about him, and viewed himself as a sinner, not deserving God’s gifts, but dependent on God’s grace. He ceased to envy the wicked and began to consider his obligation to the righteous. He realized that fellowship with God was not inconsistent with adversity, but often was its result. He then appreciated suffering as a gracious gift from a loving God.

Worship is not so much the leaving behind of life and coming into the presence of God as it is bringing life before God and coming to view it as He does. Worship is seeing things as they are. God is good and faithful. Life on earth is fleeting. Thus we should praise God for all that He is and for all that He does, even when He brings suffering into our lives.

Worship is not just important because it delights the heart of God. Worship is vital because it renews the perspective of the saints and enables them to live in a world of suffering, praising God, obeying His word, and looking ahead to the fulfillment of all His promises.

116 “We may indicate the distinctive nature of the solution offered in this psalm by noting that it penetrates deeper than does any other that has ever been attempted on the Old Testament level. It mounts to the very presence of God, holds close to Him, and then views the situation from that vantage point.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1969), p. 523.

Perhaps Kirkpatrick best summarizes the contribution of Psalm 73 with regard to the other passages which deal with the same subject. He writes: “In Psalm 37 we have a simple exhortation to patience and faith in view of the prosperity of the wicked, for the triumph of the wicked will be short-lived, while the reward of the righteous will be sure and abiding. In Psalm 49 the impotence and the transitoriness of wealth are insisted on, and contrasted with God’s care for the righteous and the final triumph of righteousness. In this Psalm the problem is still approached from the side of the prosperity of the wicked, though there is a side-glance at the sufferings of the righteous (v. 14). It represents a deeper and probably later stage of thought: the difficulty has become more acute, and the solution is more complete; for the Psalmist is led to recognize not only the instability of worldly greatness, but the supreme blessedness of fellowship with God as man’s highest good. In the Book of Job the problem is approached from the side of the suffering of the righteous, but it is fully discussed in its manifold aspects. A further step is made towards the conclusion implicitly contained in the faith of this Psalm, that this world is but one act in the great drama of life.” A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Cambridge: University Press, 1906), p. 431.

117 “The very first word allows for two possibilities of interpretation. Most of the commentators who follow the English tradition translate the ‘akh as ‘surely.’ The German tradition for the most part (except Luther) follows the equally acceptable meaning ‘only,’ i.e., God has been only good to Israel. The choice is difficult since both usages are fully warranted.” Leupold, pp. 531-532.

One can see that if verse one were rendered, “Only good is God to Israel,” the psalmist’s anguish is even more acute.

118 Gerhard von Rad writes: “Seldom do we find in the OT a word which to the same degree as shalom can bear a common use and yet can also be filled with a concentrated religious content far above the level of the average conception.” Gerhard von Rad, “EIRENE,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [photolithoprinted], 1968), II, p. 402.

Carr adds, “Shalom, and its related words … are among the most important theological words in the OT. Shalom occurs over 250 times in 213 separate verses (so Durham, p. 275. BDB lists 237 uses). The KJV translates 172 of these as “peace.” The remainder are translated about 310 different ways, many only a single time each.” G. Lloyd Carr, “Shalem,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), II, p. 931.

119 Ibid.

120 Ibid.

121 Gerhard von Rad, “EIRENE,” p. 403.

122 A comparison of the various translations will show some differences in the way verse 4 is rendered. This reflects a slightly different reading of the text, which some feel is both justified and necessary. For example, Kidner writes: “Death seems to be introduced too early in the passage. ‘In their death’ is a single Heb. word, lemotam; divided it is read as lamo; tam, i.e. as the italicized words in the sentence: ‘… no pangs for them; sound and sleek is their body.’” Derek Kidner, Psalms (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), II, p. 260, fn. 2.

123 Kirkpatrick writes concerning verse 10: “A difficult verse. The general sense appears to be that, attracted by the prosperity and pretensions of the wicked, a crowd of imitators turn to follow them, and in their company drink to the dregs the cup of sinful pleasure.” Ibid.

124 There are two major ways of interpreting verses 10-14. The first is to understand that it is the followers of the wicked who are speaking in verses 10-14. They come to the conclusion of verse 11 (How can God know?) and they justify it on the basis of their observations of the wicked, which are expressed in verses 12-13. The wicked, they conclude, are getting away with it, and even prospering in their sin. They decide that godliness is in vain, and that God really doesn’t care (vv. 13-14, v. 11). Like those addressed in the Book of Hebrews, it would seem that they considered the cost of obedience too high, and have determined to give up. “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” The psalmist speaks for himself, then, only in verse 15. He considered joining his peers in abandoning his faith, but decided against it.

The second view of verses 10-14 is that those who have chosen to follow the path of the wicked who have prospered speak only in verse 11. The psalmist then takes up in verses 12-14 and speaks for himself, honestly confessing the thoughts he has pondered, but finally rejected. This is the view of Kirkpatrick, which he ably defends (pp. 434-435). I have adopted this latter view. The substance of the psalmist’s words is little different, in the end.

125 “The light breaks in as he turns to God Himself, and to Him as an object not of speculation but of worship.” Kidner, II, pp. 261-262.

The expression “the sanctuary of God” is literally “the sanctuaries.” Just how this should be understood is debated. Leupold writes: “It is not easy to determine whether this statement refers to the visible Temple as such and the attendance of public worship in it, or whether it refers to an entering into the truth that God knows and imparts to others concerning His strange dealings with the children of men. Perhaps one had better allow for both possibilities. All commentators are agreed that a mere physical entering into the sanctuary gives no deeper insight. One must either hear something of God’s truth uttered in the sanctuary, or one must at least, while worshiping there and pondering upon divine truth, have been led by the guidance of the Spirit of God into new insights that resolve the troublesome problem. It is true that the latter may occur without the former. Both might have occurred in sequence.” Leupold, p. 528.

126 It should be pointed out here that there is considerable discussion among Bible scholars as to how specific this passage is concerning the future judgment of the wicked. So too there is debate about such statements as are found in verse 24 concerning the “glory” which awaits the saint. My personal opinion is that the specifics are not at all spelled out in this psalm, but that room is left for the more complete revelation of the Old Testament prophets and the even more particular instruction of the New Testament. I believe that the Old Testament saint had a hope beyond the grave, but that it was not nearly so well defined as we might think, looking back as we do from the New Testament teaching.

7. Psalm 82: The Judgment of the &#8216;Gods’

Introduction

In the days of Jesus’ earthly life the Messianic expectation was at its highest pitch. Christ’s public ministry was surrounded by controversy as He claimed to be Messiah Himself. In His debate with the Jewish religious leaders, Christ quoted from Psalm 82 to prove His Messianic credentials. His citation of Psalm 82:6 must be explored within the larger context of John’s Gospel.

Recall, in John 9, that our Lord had just healed a man who had been blind since birth, thereby demonstrating that He was the “light of the world” (John 9:5). While the blind man came to faith, the Jewish religious leaders willfully closed their eyes to the identity of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. In the tenth chapter of John’s Gospel Jesus claimed to be the “Good Shepherd,” the door through whom everyone must enter in order to be saved. As the Good Shepherd He promised to lay down His life for the sheep (John 10:11). This statement caused a division among the Jews (10:19). Some insisted that He had a demon and ought to be ignored, while others found it difficult to believe that a demon-possessed man could give sight to a man born blind (10:20-21).

The Jews gathered about our Lord, urging Him to speak forthrightly. Was He the Messiah or not (10:24)? His answer was clear enough for those who believed. He had previously revealed His identity but the majority did not believe. They did not believe because they were not His sheep. Those who were His sheep heard His voice, but the rest did not. Those whom God gave the Son believed and no one could snatch them from the Father’s hand. Climactically, Jesus boldly announced, “I and the Father are one” (10:30).

This seemingly heretical acclamation enraged our Lord’s enemies. They took up stones to put Him to death. This statement was blasphemy in their view. To this charge our Lord responded by quoting from Psalm 82:6: “‘I said, you are gods’” (John 10:34). If God could call those “gods” to whom the word of God had come, why was it wrong for Jesus to claim to be God? Our Lord’s defense did not convince most of His opponents. They attempted to put Him to death, but He eluded their grasp (10:39).

We can hardly be surprised that any argument would fail to convince those so opposed to our Lord. Let me ask you though, my friend, how convincing do you find our Lord’s defense? I must admit that I have always been inclined to think of the Lord’s use of Psalm 82 as more clever than convincing. Wasn’t Jesus just embarrassing His enemies by the use of an ingenious debating technique? At best, wouldn’t our Lord’s argument have proven Him to be a “god” only in the same sense that all men are “gods”? Isn’t this an argument which the cults could use to prove that men can be “gods” in the same way Christ claimed to be? Doesn’t our Lord’s use of Psalm 82 create more problems than it solves?

It was only when a puzzled Christian asked me what our Lord meant in John 10 that I turned to Psalm 82 to try to understand its message. As I have come to a better understanding of Psalm 82 I have also been able to appreciate how well the text our Lord quoted justified His claim to be God. Psalm 82 not only showed that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah, it also had a very pointed message to those who had rejected Him and were attempting to put Him to death. Furthermore, I have come to see that Psalm 82 has a very awesome word to those of us who live in the 20th century. Let us look then to Psalm 82 for a word from God which should challenge our lives as much as it did those who lived so many years ago.

God’s Court Is Convened (82:1)

1 A Psalm of Asaph. God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. (NASB)

This psalm begins on a very solemn note. Asaph, the author of this psalm, describes God as a judge who is convening His court in order to pronounce charges. God is said to “take His stand in His own congregation” (v. 1, NASB). The expression “to take a stand” is indicative of the serious nature of the indictment which God is about to make.127 God has taken His stand for the purpose of pronouncing judgment, which the second line of verse 1 indicates, “He judges in the midst of the rulers” (v. 2, NASB). God has taken His stand “in His own congregation” (v. 1, NASB). Literally this expression would be rendered, “in the congregation of God” (cf. marginal note, NASB). I agree with others128 that this phrase is best understood in terms of the congregation of Israel. God has taken His stand in the assembly or congregation of His people, Israel, to pronounce judgment upon them.

The second line of verse 1 identifies those whom God has determined to judge. God judges in the midst of the “gods” (v. 1, margin, NASB). The Hebrew word elohim, is rendered “rulers” in the NASB. Elohim is a common designation for God in the Old Testament. Its precise meaning here has been the subject of considerable discussion. It is not only crucial to a proper interpretation of this psalm, it is also essential for an understanding of our Lord’s use of Psalm 82:6 (where the word elohim once again occurs) in the tenth chapter of John.

There are several explanations of who the “gods” are in verses 1 and 6. The first is the view which understands the “gods” to be the mythical gods of the surrounding nations.129 Another is that the “gods” are the human rulers of the nations which are oppressing Israel.130 Yet another explanation is that the elohim are angels, a view surprisingly held by Kidner.131

The most reasonable explanation is the view most widely held over the centuries.132 The “gods” referred to in Psalm 82:1 and 6 are the rulers of Israel, who have failed to carry out their responsibilities as God’s representatives in the ruling of the nation. Several lines of evidence support this interpretation:

(1) The way elohim is used elsewhere in the Old Testament. The term elohim almost always refers to the one and only God, the God of Israel (Deut. 4:35,39). It sometimes refers to the so-called “gods” of the heathen (e.g. Judg. 11:24; 1 Kings 18:24). The term also occasionally identifies “… rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power …”133 Several passages may use elohim in this sense:

“Moreover, he [Aaron] shall speak for you [Moses] to the people; and it shall come about that he shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be as God [elohim] to him” (Exod. 4:16).

Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I make you as God [elohim] to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet” (Exod. 7:1).

“Then his master shall bring him to God [elohim, or, the judges who acted in God’s name, margin, NASB], then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently” (Exod. 21:6).

“If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house shall appear before the judges [elohim], to determine whether he laid his hands on his neighbor’s property. For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for clothing, or for any lost thing about which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before the judges [elohim]; he whom the judges [elohim] condemn shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exod. 22:8,9).

The teaching of the Bible is that man was created in God’s image to reign and to rule as a vice regent over the earth (Gen. 1:26,28; cf. also Ps. 8:6; Rom. 8:17-21; 2 Tim. 2:12). Rulers are appointed by God to carry out His purposes of restraining evil and rewarding those who do what is good (cf. Rom. 13:1-4). In this sense rulers not only act for God; they, in a sense, act as God (as “gods”):

And he said to the judges, “Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the Lord who is with you when you render judgment. Now then let the fear of the Lord be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the Lord our God will have no part in unrighteousness, or partiality, or the taking of a bribe” (2 Chron. 19:6-7).

(2) The Scriptures teach that men are responsible for the actions commanded in verses 3-4 and those condemned in verse 2. The Old Testament Law commanded the Israelites to care for the needy, the helpless, and the oppressed:

“You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge. But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing. When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands” (Deut. 24:17-19; cf. also Exod. 23:2-3, 6-9; Lev. 19:15, 33-34; Deut. 1:17).

This passage suggests that all of the injustices and sufferings of Israel while in Egyptian bondage were intended to make God’s people sensitive to the plight of the weak and the oppressed.

What the Law commanded, Proverbs and the prophets reiterated:

“Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy” (Prov. 31:8-9).

‘Thus says the Lord, “Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place”’ (Jer. 22:3).

(3) The condemnation found in Psalm 82 is elsewhere clearly directed against Israel and particularly its leaders, both in the Old and New Testaments:

Do you indeed speak righteousness, O gods?134 Do you judge uprightly, O sons of men? No, in heart you work unrighteousness; on earth you weigh out the violence of your hands (Ps. 58:1-2).

The Lord arises to contend, and stands135 to judge the people. The Lord enters into judgment with the elders and princes of His people, “It is you who have devoured the vineyard; the plunder of the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing My people, and grinding the face of the poor?” declares the Lord God of hosts (Isa. 3:13-15, cf. also Ezek. 34:1-6).

“Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues, and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation” (Luke 20:46-47).

(4) Finally the use of the word shaphat in the Old Testament indicates that elohim refers to Israelite rulers. I am convinced that a key to the interpretation of this psalm is a proper understanding of the Hebrew word shaphat, which occurs four times (NASB: “judges,” v. 1; “judge,” v. 2; “vindicate,” v. 3; “judge,” v. 8). Unfortunately the English translation “judge” most often falls short of the much broader nuance of the Hebrew term. In the United States, our government has three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. At least in theory these three branches are separated to guard against dictatorial rule by a minority. An American thus thinks of “judging” merely as passing judgment in legal disputes, but to the Hebrew mind shaphat would encompass all three functions of governing.136

The verb, “judge,” in the Old Testament has a variety of meanings: (1) To act as a ruler, whether as a congregation (Num. 18:22-28), as an individual judge (Deut. 1:16; Judg. 16:31; 1 Sam. 7:16), or as a king (1 Sam. 8:5-6; 2 Chron. 1:10-11, “rule” NASB). Messiah will rule the earth (Ps. 72:12-15; 96:13; Isa. 11:1-5) in the future. (2) To judge in cases of controversy or litigation (Exod. 18:16). (3) To punish (Ezek. 7:3,8; 16:38; 23:24). (4) To defend the rights of men, especially the helpless and the afflicted (“deliver,” 1 Sam. 24:15, NASB; “vindicate,” Ps. 10:18, NASB; “freed,” 2 Sam. 18:19, NASB).

Perhaps the breadth of the meaning of the term shaphat is best illustrated in Psalm 72, a song of Solomon which characterizes the reign of a righteous king. (In verse 4 shaphat occurs and is rendered “vindicate.”) The righteous king rules in righteousness (v. 2). He cares for the afflicted (vv. 2,4,12-14). Under him the righteous prosper (vv. 7,16), while the wicked are crushed (v. 4). To judge righteously is to rule as the righteous king described by Solomon in Psalm 72.

God has convened His court in the midst of the congregation of Israel. In particular, His grievance is with the leaders of the nation Israel. The specifics of the indictment are outlined in verse 2.

God’s Indictment (82:2)

2 How long will you judge unjustly, And show partiality to the wicked? Selah. (NASB)

Those being rebuked in Psalm 82 are, first and foremost, Israel’s rulers, who were responsible to promote justice, to punish evildoers, and to defend the weak and the oppressed. Verse 2 indicates that Israel’s leaders had failed in their responsibilities. Injustice was promoted and the wicked were honored and treated with partiality (literally, their face was lifted, almost in the sense that a benediction was pronounced on them). The expression “how long” implies unjust judgment and partiality had been long standing. Unrighteous leadership was not the exception; it was the norm.

The mood of the Psalm suggests that God’s patience with the corrupt leadership was exhausted. Verses 2-4 contain the response of the Supreme Judge of the universe, the Righteous Ruler of the earth. Partiality and unjust judgment must come to an end. More than this, righteous rule must be restored. Verses 3 and 4 state positively what those who stand in God’s place as rulers must do.

The Change Commanded (82:3-4)

3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. 4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. (NASB)

The weak, fatherless and afflicted must be cared for and protected from wicked men since their vulnerability made them easy prey. Evil rulers not only fail to reward those who do good, and to punish the wicked, they actually prey upon the weak and the defenseless. Through Ezekiel God condemned Israel’s leaders, her shepherds, for failing to care for the flock and also for devouring it:

Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock. Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them”’” (Ezek. 34:1-4).

The test of a godly leader is what he does on behalf of the poor and the oppressed. Anyone will gladly come to the aid of one who has power and prestige, who is able to return the favor. Our Lord teaches that we are tested in terms of what we do for the “least of our brethren”:

“And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me’” (Matt. 25:40).

God has a particular concern for those who are powerless, poor, and without adequate human protection. Any ruler who is to reflect God in His administration must have the same concern for the oppressed and the afflicted.

Unrighteous Rule: Its Causes and Consequences (82:5-7)

5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6 I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. 7 Nevertheless you will die like men, And fall like any one of the princes.” (NASB)

It is difficult to dogmatically determine the antecedent of the pronoun “they” in verse 5. Are “they” the wicked previously spoken of in verses 2-4, or are “they” the weak and the needy who are oppressed by the wicked? Perhaps both are in view, since those who lead often infect others with their own ailments. The sins of the fathers are visited on the sons (Exod. 20:5). In the New Testament Jesus called the wicked religious leaders “blind leaders of the blind” (Matt. 15:14), who fell into the pit, along with their followers. Thus both ungodly leaders and those who follow them lack understanding, so that they grope about as in the darkness. A similar condition is described by Hosea:

So you will stumble by day, and the prophet also will stumble with you by night; and I will destroy your mother. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children (Hos. 4:5-6).

The lack of knowledge and understanding referred to in Psalm 82:5 is explained in the Book of Jeremiah:

“For My people are foolish, they know Me not; they are stupid children, and they have no understanding. They are shrewd to do evil, but to do good they do not know” (Jer. 4:22).

“Did not your father eat and drink, and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; then it was well. Is not that what it means to know Me?” declares the Lord. “But your eyes and your heart are intent only upon your own dishonest gain, and on shedding innocent blood and on practicing oppression and extortion” (Jer. 22:15b-17).

Israel’s leaders, who are brought to the judgment bar of God in Psalm 82, do not know God. Their ignorance and lack of knowledge is evidenced by their injustice and oppression of the afflicted and needy.

Since the nations were to be established on righteousness and justice (Prov. 16:12; 24:3; 25:5; 29:14), when the wicked rule the foundations are shaken (Ps. 82:5). When the Lord reigns the world is firmly settled:

The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved (Ps. 93:1).

Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity (Ps. 96:10).

Verse 6 is crucial, both to this psalm and to the argument which our Lord bases upon its citation in John 10. “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.’” Earthly rulers must be reminded of the fact that they are to act in God’s place. They are to exercise power in His name. They are also to act in accord with His character and His commands. As the apostle Paul put it, an earthly ruler is “… a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” (Rom. 13:4). If we do what is good we will “… have praise from the same” (Rom. 13:3). Earthly rulers are only “god-like” when they rule as God would rule.

Verse 6 also serves to remind human magistrates that they are in a position of authority because God appointed them (cf. Rom. 13:1). Often, when human rulers obtain power and prestige, they forget the source of their authority. Thus Nebuchadnezzar had to be humbled by living as a beast:

“King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is declared: sovereignty has been removed from you, and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you, until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whomever He wishes” (Dan. 4:31b-32).

It is possible that the second line of verse 6 is the kind of (synonymous) poetic parallelism which merely restates the thought of the first in different words. I am inclined to think that the second line builds upon the first. While the first line addresses only the rulers, the second broadens the scope of God’s warning to include the entire community of Israel (“all of you”). Now, of course, this may mean “all of you rulers.” I am inclined to think that the condemnation of the earlier verses is being broadened to include all of the people of Israel. After all, how can men be leaders unless there be followers? Many passages place responsibility for just rulers and just rule on all of Israel, not just on its leadership.

“You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice” (Exod. 23:1-2).

“You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the word of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you” (Deut. 16:18-20).

These passages teach that the responsibility for godly leadership rests upon the community. The people as a whole have an obligation to make sure that godly leaders are appointed. They must resist peer pressure and stand alone, if necessary, in upholding righteousness.

I believe that while God appoints certain men to lead, He expects all of His people to be leaders when it comes to doing what is right. God created man to rule over His creation (Gen. 1:26, 28). Even after the fall of man and the flood, man was still commanded to rule, since he remained a creation in God’s image (Gen. 9:1-7). If Israel would but obey, God promised to make His people a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6). While this did not happen in Israel’s day, it is a promise partially fulfilled in the church (1 Pet. 2:5) and will be completely fulfilled in the Kingdom which is to come (cf. Rev. 1:6; 20:6). Not only did Israel as a nation have its rulers, Israel was to rule as a nation, seeking to practice and to promote God’s righteousness on the earth. In Hosea 4:6, Israel, as a nation, is rejected by God as His priest among the nations (cf. Exod. 19:6).

The expression “sons of the Most High” is, I believe, virtually equivalent to “son of God”. This phrase, while it applies specifically to Messiah, also refers to those who rule. God established a special relationship with David when He appointed him as king of Israel. The relationship between God and David was one of a father and a son:

“I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you” (2 Sam. 7:14-15).

Clearly, the father-son relationship here is between God and David and his sons (all of whom, except Christ, will sin). Sonship, ultimately, is conferred upon the Messiah, who will rule over the earth in righteousness:

I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Thy possession’ (Ps. 2:7-8).

Ultimately God will reign in the person of His Son, the Messiah. For now, He reigns through His “sons,” the “gods” who are appointed to reign in His stead. It must also be said, God is to reign in and through His people collectively. We who belong to Him are all His sons, destined to reign with Him in the future (cf. 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 20:6), but also to actively promote righteousness now.

The kings of ancient days were frequently worshipped as “gods” (cf. Acts 12:22-23). Perhaps they viewed themselves as “gods,” too, but in a sense different from that conveyed in verse 6. Let such “heady” rulers remember they are only men and they will die like mere mortals.

Interestingly, the word “men” in verse 7 is adam in the Hebrew. He was created in the image of God and destined to rule over God’s creation. Had Adam obeyed God and carried out his calling, he would have lived forever. Due to his disobedience he failed to enjoy the high calling that was his. Let the rulers appointed by God learn from this. In spite of the dignity and power bestowed on them, they will be judged like men (and like Adam). They are, after all, mere men. In their pride this can easily be forgotten, just as we see in the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:28-37) and Herod (Acts 12:18-23). Like the princes before them who failed to remember their responsibility before God, the ungodly rulers of this Psalm will fall. The word “fall” in the second line of verse 7 may, as A. R. Fausset suggests, signify “God’s judgment by a violent death.”137 Such warning should serve to humble those who rule arrogantly. A high calling does not necessarily result in a glorious conclusion. Let those who have such a calling carry out their task with humility and diligence.

The Ultimate Cure: Come Lord Jesus (82:8)

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is Thou who dost possess all the nations. (NASB)

Despite all the warnings of the first seven verses, the psalmist realizes that righteous rule will only prevail on the earth when God Himself reigns in the person of His Son, Messiah. Verse 8 concludes this psalm with a petition that the God who possesses the earth might establish righteousness fully and finally: “Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is Thou who dost possess all the nations.” This is the equivalent of what we read in the New Testament: “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 7:10; cf. 1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20).

The psalmist turns from the general subject of righteous rule to the specific solution: the Righteous Ruler. Only when He comes will there be a rule that is truly righteous. Here is the messianic hope of the Old Testament saint. Even the great kings like David and Solomon fell short of God’s ideal. Messiah Himself must come before the ideal government will become a reality.

Our Lord’s Interpretation of Psalm 82:6

Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? (John 10:34).

John’s purpose in writing his gospel is explicitly stated to be that of convincing his readers of the deity of Christ (20:30-31). In order to do this John recorded a series of signs (cf. 20:30) which led to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus was not only God, but also Israel’s Messiah. As the evidence mounts in this gospel, so does the opposition. While the disciples soon began to believe in Jesus (cf. 1:49; 2:11), the scribes and Pharisees quickly rejected Him, especially after the cleansing of the temple (2:14-22). Early on, the Jewish rulers sought to put Jesus to death, and each new confrontation with Him only added to their determination (5:18).

With this growing opposition there was an accompanying polarization among the people. The division became wider and wider: “The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’” (6:52) As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him any more (6:66).

And there was much grumbling among the multitudes concerning Him; some were saying, “He is a good man”; others were saying, “No, on the contrary, He leads the multitude astray.” Yet no one was speaking openly of Him for fear of the Jews (7:12-13).

Therefore some of the people of Jerusalem were saying, “Is this not the man whom they are seeking to kill? And look, He is speaking publicly, and they are saying nothing to Him. The rulers do not really know that this is the Christ, do they? (7:25-26).

They were seeking therefore to seize Him; and no man laid his hand on Him, because His hour had not yet come. But many of the multitude believed in Him; and they were saying, “When the Christ shall come, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?” (7:30-31).

Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” Others were saying, “This is the Christ.” Still others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He?” … So there arose a division in the multitude because of Him (7:40-41, 43).

There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words. And many of them were saying, “He has a demon, and is insane. Why do you listen to Him?” Others were saying, “These are not the sayings of one demon-possessed. A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?” (10:19-21).

While some had come to believe Jesus was the promised Messiah, many had chosen to follow their leaders in rejecting Him. The feeding of the five thousand and giving sight to the man born blind failed to convince the critics of our Lord. While they attributed His miracles to demonic powers (8:48; 10:20), His teaching they considered outright blasphemy. In John 8:58 Jesus claimed to be the “I AM” of the Old Testament, and therefore the Jews attempted to stone Him (8:59). Jesus’ claims continued. In chapter nine He taught that He was the “light of the world” (v. 5). In chapter ten He said, “I and the Father are one” (v. 30).

One of the central issues involved in the conflict between our Lord and the religious leadership of the nation was who had the authority to lead. They quickly noted that Jesus was gathering disciples and baptizing them, even more than John the Baptist (John 4:1-2). Jesus claimed His authority to judge came from the Father (5:22,27,30). Jesus accused his opponents of judging “according to appearance” rather than “with righteous judgment” (7:24). The scribes and Pharisees sought to condemn the woman caught in adultery (8:4-5), but Jesus refused to condemn her (8:10-11). He then accused the Jewish leaders of judging “according to the flesh” (8:15), while He judged according to truth (8:16,26). When the blind man was given sight, the judgment controversy again surfaced:

And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see; and that those who see may become blind.” Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things, and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?” (9:39-40).

In John 10 our Lord boldly spoke forth, identifying Himself as the Messiah and the Good Shepherd. He also made it clear that the religious leaders who had rejected Him were the evil shepherds, like those depicted centuries earlier by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 34). God promised to come and to judge between the sheep, and to set up one shepherd over His flock:

Therefore, thus says the Lord God to them, “Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you push with side and with shoulder, and thrust at all the weak with your horns, until you have scattered them abroad, therefore, I will deliver My flock, and they will no longer be a prey; and I will judge between one sheep and another. Then I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he will feed them; he will feed them himself and be their shepherd” (Ezek. 34:20-23).

When our Lord announced that He was the Shepherd, the good One, He identified Himself as the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy.138 He also identified His opponents, the religious leaders of the nation Israel, as the shepherds who dominated and abused the flock, rather than caring for the weak and the sickly (Ezek. 34:1-4). No wonder they reacted to Jesus’ teaching so violently and wanted to stone Him (John 10:31,39).

When accused of blasphemy, Jesus based His defense on the statement quoted from Psalm 82:6: “I said, you are gods.” This was no time for clever tricks or weak arguments. When Jesus referred to this psalm, He did so, I believe, because no passage argued His case more forcefully. It is not just that one verse, but the argument of the entire psalm upon which Jesus rested His defense. Psalm 82 warned the unrighteous judges (leaders) of Israel of God’s impending judgment upon them. When Jesus appealed to this psalm He not only identified Himself as the fulfillment of verse 8, He also identified them as the fulfillment of verses 1-7. The warning of the psalm was being fulfilled in their midst. God had finally come to judge the “gods.” How much better the name God suited Jesus than the title “gods” suited the scribes and the Pharisees.

To have understood the message of Psalm 82 and our Lord’s application of it would have been to bow the knee to Him as the Son of God, the promised Messiah. To reject this message was to reject the Messiah, which, in fact, many did. No one better interpreted or applied Psalm 82 than our Lord. No one better fulfilled it than He.

Conclusion

The relevance of Psalm 82 to the people of our Lord’s day is now obvious. The people must ascertain the person and character of the Righteous Judge. Either the religious leaders were correct (and Jesus must be put to death) or Jesus is God’s Righteous Ruler (and the Jewish leaders must be rejected). Even today, men must make the same decision. Either we bow the knee now to the Lord Jesus as our Savior, or we will bow the knee to Him as our Judge (Phil. 2:9-11). Let us do so now, so that we will not stand before Him condemned.

There are other applications for us as well. Let me suggest three areas to which Psalm 82 speaks. First, this psalm should serve as a somber warning to all who lead, regardless of the level of leadership. I fear that many seek leadership positions for the power and the prestige they seem to offer. There is, Psalm 82 informs us, power and authority invested in leaders. That is part of the reason why the word elohim is employed in the psalm. However, the authority and power of leadership is not ours; it is God’s. To fail to exercise our God-given power consistent with God’s character and commands is to fall under His judgment. Let those of us who lead do so with “fear and trembling”. Also, let us remember that power has been given, not so much for our benefit, as for the protection of those who are weak and oppressed. The measure of any leader’s effectiveness is his protection and care for the weak. In short, leaders are called of God to serve others, not to be served, even as our Lord came to serve at the sacrifice of His life (Mark 10:45).

Second, there is a lesson here for those who are under authority. I have personally gained a new appreciation for the dignity of the office God has given leaders. In Ephesians Paul exhorts wives to submit to their own husbands as “to the Lord” (5:22), and slaves to submit to their masters as “to Christ” (6:5). Peter, in urging wives to submit to their husbands, refers to Sarah, who expressed her submission to Abraham by calling him “lord” (1 Pet. 3:6). All of this causes me to think that submission to God-given authorities involves a deeper reverence or respect than I have been inclined to suppose in the past. We are not to respect or reverence earthly authorities as God, but given the teaching of the Bible we do need to see them in the light of their God-given position and power. For me, this requires more respect than I have heretofore given.

Furthermore, Psalm 82 also warns me about following the right leaders. While God holds leaders accountable for their administration, He also holds me accountable for following them, in particular, when they are wrong and I know it. I understand Jesus to be warning His listeners about following their leaders when He cited Psalm 82:6. The nation Israel had a choice to make. Would they follow their leaders in rejecting Christ and putting Him to death, or would they follow the Good Shepherd? The pattern of the Scriptures, as I understand them, is that we ought not attempt the overthrow of a corrupt government, but that we must refuse to obey it when its commands are contrary to the revealed word of God (cf. Dan. 3:13-18; 6:10; Acts 5:29).

Strange as it may seem, Psalm 82 has something to say to us about church discipline. The church members are “gods” in the same way that Israel’s leaders were, because we are assigned the responsibility of acting in God’s behalf when church members willfully disregard God’s word and the warning of fellow saints. With this is mind, look once more at our Lord’s words to His church:

“And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst” (Matt. 18:15-20).

Are we not taught that we are to act for God in this matter of correction and that God is intimately involved with the decisions of the church in the discipline of willful members of His body, the church? I believe that this is what Paul practiced in 1 Corinthians 5:5-6 when he turned a sinful member over to Satan in “the name of our Lord Jesus.” Church discipline is essential because God has instructed us to act in His behalf when fellow Christians fail to heed God’s word. To fail to obey God in this unpleasant task is to misrepresent the character of God and to disobey His command to us to reflect His holiness by dealing with sin in the church (cf. 1 Cor. 5:6-8).

Finally, I see a very clear command that we, as Christians (and thus, sons of God), must be concerned about social justice. James puts it this way: “This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27).

While Christians have often been at the forefront of the cause of the poor and the oppressed throughout history, it is amazing to me that many Christians today are apathetic about social justice. The reasons are various. Some shy away from it because the “liberals” are taking up the banner of social justice. Others seem to be passive because they view the time immediately preceding Christ’s return as days of apostasy and social decadence (Paul believed this too, cf. 2 Tim. 3:1-13, and so do I). They therefore seem to stand idly by, as mere spectators, often delighted by what they see, for they feel it must mean that our Lord’s return is near.

Let me remind you that the psalmist also believed in the coming of Christ. This was something for which he prayed (v. 8). Nevertheless, this did not deter him from warning unrighteous rulers, nor did he hold back from exhorting leaders to look out for the needs of the weak and the oppressed (vv. 3-4). Indeed, even in the darkest hours of man’s history, before the return of our Lord, it is the treatment of the oppressed which serves as the standard for spirituality (Matt. 25:31-46).

I sometimes hear my Christian brothers and sisters bemoaning the fact that our country allows refugees to settle here, away from the ravages of war and political persecution. I do not mean to say that there are no good reasons for excluding some from coming to our country. What I am asking you to seriously consider is whether your reasons for opposing them are biblical, in the light of our study.

My political convictions, quite honestly, are somewhat to the right in the spectrum. I am not opposed to “Reaganomics” as many are. Yet, I want to suggest that some who cite conservative politics as their defense for cutting “social justice” matters out of the budget may be doing so for reasons which Psalm 82 condemns.

I understand that these matters are both sensitive and a matter of deep conviction. I simply urge you, regardless of your political and economic point of view to evaluate your positions in the light of the command to care for the weak and the oppressed. This is what rulers of days gone by failed to do. This is why our Lord came the first time. This is why He will come again as the Righteous Ruler. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

128 “The word ‘edah is frequently applied to the congregation of Israel as such.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1969), p. 594. [Israel is called the ‘congregation of Jehovah’ in Num. 27:17; 31:16; Josh. 22:16-17.]

129 “In more recent years scholars have tended to identify the ‘elohim with the national gods of the various peoples of the world, who have been demoted to the position of Yahweh’s servants …” A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1981), II, p. 592.

Such “gods” however do not exist, nor are they responsible for administering justice on the earth. How can a non-existent god be summoned to judgment or be threatened with death? How then can our Lord possibly use this psalm, thus interpreted, to prove His deity?

130 Kirkpatrick mentions this as one of the interpretations which should be rejected. A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1982), p. 495.

131 “… these ‘gods’ are ‘principalities and powers’, ‘the world rulers of this present darkness’ (cf. Eph. 6:12). … On the whole this view seems truer than the former to the language of the psalm (e.g. verse 7) and to the occasional Old Testament use of the term ‘gods’ or ‘sons of God’ for angels (see on Ps. 8:5; cf. Jb. 1:6; 38:7).” Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150 (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975), p. 297.

While Kidner’s argument is based upon a sound effort to define the term “gods” from usage elsewhere in the Old Testament, it hardly gives good sense to the psalm, and it seems inconsistent with the argument which our Lord develops from the psalm in John 10. Kirkpatrick’s rebuttal of the view held by Kidner is forceful: “The idea that angels can be punished with death is startling, and foreign to the O. T. view of angelic nature. … There is not the slightest hint that vv. 2-4 refer to anything but the oppression of men by men. The language, as has been pointed out above, closely resembles that of the Law and the Prophets, and there is no reason for taking it in a non-natural sense.” Kirkpatrick, p. 495.

132 Leupold says this psalm “… presents a judgment pronounced by the Lord on the judges or rulers of Israel. For in Israel the term judges had practically the same meaning as the term rulers, the Israelite usage being derived from the chief function of rulers. … Up to about seventy years ago there was a practical unanimity in the church as to the interpretation of this psalm, commentators being agreed that it treated the subject just as we have just indicated.” Leupold, p. 592.

134 The word here rendered “gods” is elim, not elohim. These two words are related, but not identical. Kirkpatrick remarks, “Elim, however is not so used elsewhere, and may simply mean ‘mighty ones.’” Kirkpatrick, p. 327.

135 “Stands” here is a translation of the Hebrew word, ‘omed, and is therefore not the same word as in Psalm 82:1. The force of the two is nearly the same, however, a fact which Perowne notes. Cf. Perowne, p. 105.

136 “Shaphat,” Robert D. Culver, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), II, p. 947. This is an excellent article (pp. 947-949), which I highly recommend for your reading.

138 Luke introduced our Lord as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy: “And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book, and found the place where it was written, ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord’” (Luke 4:17-19). Here, Jesus identified Himself as the Messiah, Israel’s ideal leader. The thrust of His ministry was to do the very things which the wicked rulers of Israel (as indicated in Psalm 82) had failed to do.

8. Psalm 90: Place for Pessimism

Introduction

In the village of Chikaldara there is a place which my Indian friends called “the fort.” The fort is a great structure built years ago, which they promised I would see before I left. When we arrived at the outer gate of the fort, it was like a great medieval castle, with what looked almost like a moat at one side. We left our car at the entrance and had nearly three miles of hiking from the outer gate until we reached the remains of the palace. It was built on the highest mountain in the area, about 4,000 feet in elevation. Some magnificent building structures stood within the walls of the fort. There were two beautiful pools built as reservoirs of water. On one of the pools there was a structure where the royal family could sit in the shade and watch the children swim in the reservoirs. To build these structures, great stones must have been carried for miles, and then fitted together with hardly any gap between them. Although the buildings were centuries old, one could see the great affluence and ease of life for the royal family that had once lived there. It was apparent however, that these were by-gone days. Pieces of angle iron now reinforce parts of these buildings to keep them from collapsing. Looking up, I wondered if it was wise to stand beneath it.

The fort is a monument to a great civilization, but I do not know who the king was or any of the royal family. All around the world, one can see many such structures. Often they are but tombs, containing the remains of someone who has gone on before. They are a testimony to the brevity of man’s life and to the futility of man’s efforts to gain immortality. Like the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) man’s efforts to etch his memory in history often end in frustration.

Psalm 90 deals with the dark side of life, one we don’t like to focus on. Given the choice of Psalm 90 or Psalm 91, we would gladly choose Psalm 91, for its message is one of confidence. This is the other side of the coin. There is also a dark side of life. Just as we find it difficult to look into the brightness of the sun’s rays, we find it equally unpleasant to dwell on the dark side of life. Psalm 90 tells us there is a place for pessimism, a very important lesson to learn.

Notice, as well, that even in its somber thoughts, God is described as Israel’s dwelling place. Psalm 90 is unique in that it is the only psalm attributed to Moses. Conservative scholars accept Moses’ authorship; others do not. They see the Psalm written much later after the era of Moses. I understand it to be written by Moses. As such it makes a unique contribution in what it tells us about Moses himself, something we do not see anywhere else.

In verses 1-10 we see the problem which I refer to as “Man’s Plight.” In verses 11-17 I see “Man’s Petition,” which Moses expresses for us to God, enabling us to deal with the dark side of life.

Man’s Plight (90:1-10)

1 A Prayer of Moses the man of God. Lord, Thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. 2 Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God.

3 Thou dost turn man back into dust, And dost say, “Return, O children of men.” 4 For a thousand years in Thy sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night. 5 Thou hast swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning they are like grass which sprouts anew. 6 In the morning it flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away.

7 For we have been consumed by Thine anger, And by Thy wrath we have been dismayed. 8 Thou hast placed our iniquities before Thee, Our secret sins in the light of Thy presence. 9 For all our days have declined in Thy fury; We have finished our years like a sigh. 10 As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years, Or if due to strength, eighty years, Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow; For soon it is gone and we fly away. (NASB)

Verses 1 and 2 depict the greatness of God as Israel’s dwelling place. The Berkeley Version translates this, “Lord, Thou hast been our home …” It is interesting to refer to God in this way; He is also called man’s dwelling place in Psalm 91:9. Moses, the author of this psalm, is a man without a country. Moses was a fugitive from Egypt and he died without entering Canaan. Israel also was a people without a country. The Israelites had not yet possessed the land of Canaan when this Psalm was written. Therefore one would expect Moses to have described the land of Canaan, the Promised Land, as Israel’s dwelling place. Yet Moses knew that ultimately man’s dwelling is not a place but a Person. It is God who is our Dwelling Place and in Him we find security, safety and peace. God is described this way throughout all generations (v. 1). Literally the text reads “in generation and generation,” or as the Berkeley Version translates it, “in successive generations.”139 When Moses came on the scene of history a number of generations had already existed, beginning with Abraham (or should I say Adam?). It is therefore fitting that he said “from one generation to the next God has been our dwelling place.” This verse speaks historically of Israel’s experience with God as her dwelling place. It also speaks prophetically of Israel’s future security. In verse 2 God’s eternity is emphatically described. While God has proven to be Israel’s dwelling place throughout the generations of her existence, verse 2 assures Israel that her security is as lasting as God’s existence. He is from everlasting to everlasting. Israel’s dwelling place is God and God is eternal. Therefore Israel has a dwelling place that is both certain and continuous.

I find several references and allusions to the events described in the early chapters of the Book of Genesis (there are no allusions to Exodus). There is a reference to the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 in verse 2: “Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth or the world, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God.” God is Israel’s dwelling place, the same God who created the universe long before He created Israel through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God is the dwelling place that is eternal, past, present and future. The first two verses provide the backdrop against which Moses contrasts man’s finiteness and limitations in verses 3-6. In verse 3 we read, “You turn men back to dust, Saying, ‘Return to dust, O sons of men.’”

Not only is an allusion to Genesis 1–2 made in Psalm 90:2, but a reference to Genesis 3 is referred to in Psalm 90:3. This verse mentions man’s limitations in the wake of the fall. Actually the statement “Return to dust, sons of men,” can be translated, “Return to dust, O sons of Adam,” an even more specific allusion to the fall.140 Man, who was created from the ground is cursed so as to return to it, due to his sin. I find an allusion to Genesis 5 in verse Psalm 90:4, which says, “For a thousand years in your sight Are like a day that has just gone by, Or like a watch in the night.” This verse is familiar because it is cited by Peter who uses it to prove his point in 2 Peter 3:8, that God’s perspective of time is vastly different than man’s. While some were saying, “Where is this ‘coming’ He promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation” (2 Pet. 3:4). Peter said in effect, “You don’t understand, God does not look at time the same way we do. We view time from a human perspective, God from a divine one.”

If Moses is thinking of the history of mankind as it was recorded (by him) in the Book of Genesis, it is interesting that he uses the term “a thousand years” in Psalm 90:4. Why a thousand? In Genesis 5 we read about the “golden age of man” after the fall. Men lived longer then than at any other time in history. Methuselah lived 969 years (Gen. 5:27). I understand this thousand years, as Kirkpatrick does,141 to be a reference to the days of Methuselah. Moses is saying that even if man and his life span are looked upon in his greatest span of years, it is only a thousand years. That thousand year period which Methuselah almost broke is a very short span to God. Man is finite, God is infinite. So we have a reference to creation in verse 2, one to the fall in verse 3, and an allusion to the long life of man in verse 4. I also observe a reference to the flood in verse 5: “You sweep men away in the sleep of death.”

This translation142 is an attempt by the translators of the NIV to translate the Hebrew, “You flooded men away.” The NASB renders it, “You sweep men away like a flood.” The Berkeley Version translates the verse, “Thou carriest them away as with a flood.” I believe this as an allusion to the flood as recorded in Genesis 6 and 7. Moses surveys man’s early history as he recorded it in Genesis, to illustrate man’s finiteness as a biblical fact. Man is condemned to return to the dust. Even during the days of long life, a thousand-year span was to God as a passing, fleeting moment. Today the brevity of life is more apparent. Whether or not these are all allusions to Genesis is insignificant; the point is, life is short. God’s eternity is contrasted with the brevity of man’s life on earth.

In the remainder of verse 5 and verse 6 Moses uses the image of grass to portray the brevity of earthly life. The figure of grass is a poetic description common in the Bible depicting man’s state (cf. Ps. 37:2; Isa. 40:6ff.; 1 Pet. 1:23-25). Each new generation sprouts up like grass in the early morning; no matter how long it survives, ultimately it perishes. This cycle is demonstrated in the life of Abraham and his descendants. Abraham seems to possess a bright hope based on the covenant God made with him in Genesis 12:1-3. We sense that in his lifetime “something good is about to happen,” but it doesn’t. The covenant blessings, while kept alive through the birth of Isaac, are not realized in his life span. Abraham had to buy a burial plot for his wife. Abraham himself never possessed the land that God promised. Isaac then came along, rising like a new crop of grass. He passed on and God’s covenant promises were yet to be fulfilled. This cycle continued through each succeeding generation. With the appearance of each generation there seemed to be new hope, but it disappears as they pass off the scene.

Notice in verses 3-6 that the shortness of man’s life is not only contrasted to the eternity of God, but it is caused by God. Moses did not say that man, in and of himself, passes away; man returns to dust because it is God who said, “Return to dust, O sons of Adam” (v. 3). It is God who sweeps man away as with the flood (v. 5). The question therefore must be asked, “Since God is Israel’s dwelling place and since God is infinite and eternal, why are His people subject to such brevity in this life?” And even more pointedly, “Why does God actively cause man’s death?” The answer to these questions is given in verses 7-10.

In this section man’s shortness of life is shown to be a result of his sin. Verses 1-6 contrast God’s infinity and man’s finiteness. Moses proceeds to contrast man’s sinfulness with God’s righteousness in verses 7-10. Man’s life is “short and sour” because we are sinners living under the righteous judgment of God: “We are consumed by your anger And terrified by your indignation. You have set our iniquities before you, Our secret sins in the light of your presence” (v. 7).

God is fully aware of our sin and the shortness of life is a proof of this. Even those secret sins, the sins which we do not ourselves perceive or which we have successfully rationalized, are evident before an all-knowing and righteous God.

Not only is life shortened by sin, it is also soured by pain and sadness: All our days pass away under your wrath; We finish our years with a moan. The length of our days is seventy years—Or eighty, if we have the strength; Yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, For they quickly pass, and we fly away (vv. 9-10).

Here again we are reminded of the Book of Genesis. We know, for example, that the consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin was not only to return to dust, but to live in toil and pain. Adam had to labor (Gen. 3:17-19) and so did Eve, for it was through pain that her children would be born (Gen. 3:16). That was a consequence of sin. As the Book of Genesis proceeds Jacob is seen standing before Pharaoh. At the age of 130 he says, “My life is not like the life of my forefathers for it has been short and full of sorrow” (cf. Gen. 47:9).

Here is the grim reality of life. Life is marked by limitations, toil and suffering. This is the dark, yet real side of life. This is man’s plight as described by Moses. God is eternal, He is man’s dwelling place, but man is limited, his life is short and marked with sorrow, suffering and labor. If Moses stopped here, this would be a dim picture indeed.

Man’s Petition (90:11-17)

11 Who understands the power of Thine anger, And Thy fury, according to the fear that is due Thee? 12 So teach us to number our days, That we may present to Thee a heart of wisdom.

13 Do return, O LORD; how long will it be? And be sorry for Thy servants. 14 O satisfy us in the morning with Thy lovingkindness, That we may sing for joy and be glad all our days. 15 Make us glad according to the days Thou hast afflicted us, And the years we have seen evil. 16 Let Thy work appear to Thy servants, And Thy majesty to their children. 17 And let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us; And do confirm for us the work of our hands; Yes, confirm the work of our hands. (NASB)

Verses 11-17 are the response of Moses to the dilemma of mankind. Here he makes two requests: first he petitions God to give men the grace to live life wisely, in view of its limitations and frustrations (vv. 11-12); secondly he petitions God to ultimately remove the limitations and frustrations of life (vv. 13-17).

If life really is as Moses has described it verses 1-10, man needs God’s help. God’s help is the object of man’s petition in verses 11 and 12. “Who knows the power of your anger? For your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you. Teach us to number our days aright, That we may gain a heart of wisdom.”

Man does not fully grasp the reality of what Moses has said in the first part of this psalm. We stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the dark side of life. We refuse to acknowledge the eternality and the righteousness of God. We do not focus fully on the sinfulness of man and the sufferings of life, because that is not what we want to hear.

Proverbs teaches us that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (9:10). The first aspect of the wisdom for which man petitions God in verse 11 is the wisdom to acknowledge the righteousness and the holiness of God. I believe that when Moses requests God to “teach us to number our days aright,” he asks that God would enable men to see life as it is and man as he is. Numbering our days involves seeing life as God has described it. We must acknowledge that God is eternal and man is mortal; God is righteous and man is sinful.

We can only see ourselves as we really are when we come to see God for who He actually is. Isaiah gained an awareness of his own sin when he was granted a vision of the righteousness and holiness of God (Isa. 6:1-4). It was then that he cried out, “Woe to me! … for I am a man of unclean lips …” (Isa. 6:5). Like Isaiah, the first thing that we must acknowledge and understand is the holiness and righteousness of God. Only then will we correctly perceive our own sinful condition.

Second, verse 12 teaches us that we must live our life in the light of its limits. We must “number our days.” Most of us in dealing with life tend to focus either on the past or the future. Young people usually focus on the future looking forward to the “good life.” Older folks reminisce about the past knowing the future is shorter and less certain. We reluctantly focus on the present. Verse 12 states that since life has its limits and is so short, we do not have any assurance of tomorrow nor do we dare waste today. We must live wisely, understanding life’s limitations and its brevity. God has given us the ability to serve Him for a season. We do not know about tomorrow. We should not presume upon an uncertain future and thus procrastinate with respect to our present obligations.

Moses’ first petition in verses 11 and 12 is that God will change us, giving us the wisdom to discern life as it is, to see the righteousness of God, the shortness of life, and to live our lives in the light of life’s limitations. Moses makes a second request in verses 13-17. He petitions God to change this life and remove its limitations. Most of us would agree with this request, but our problem is that we want God to change this life without confronting the issues presented in verses 11 and 12. We don’t want to persevere and endure through difficulties, we want a life of ease so we don’t have to change ourselves. Moses prays for God to change life only after he has asked for the grace to live in this life, as God has given it. I have chosen four words to describe the petition that is found in verses 13-17.

The first word is relent. This term describes Moses’ petition that God would change in His response toward men. While God has been righteous in judging men for their sin, now Moses implores God, not for justice, but for mercy and grace. In verse 13 Moses pleads, “Relent, O Lord! How long will it be? Have compassion on your servants.” God is a God of salvation and here Moses petitions God to save, to turn to the help of His people.

Next is the word reveal. He says in verse 16, “May your deeds be shown to your servants, Your splendor to their children.” It is as though God’s face, His personal intimate contact with His people, has been veiled. God’s righteous power has not been employed for a considerable period of time. God has been standing distant and aloof from His people and so Moses asks that now God would intervene, breaking into history, that God would reveal His might, power and salvation to men.

Third, Moses asks God to restore. This life is not the ultimate purpose for which man was created. What we have seen described is a result of man’s sin and the fall. Moses cries out to God to restore all creation and mankind to what it could and should be. Life ought not to be futile, but it is. Life ought not to be short, but it is. God is besought to remove the stigma of sin, the futility of life, to restore and renew. We read in verses 14 and 15, “Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, That we may sing for joy and be glad all our days. Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, For as many years as we have seen trouble. Exchange sorrow for joy, frustration for fulfillment, fruitless toil for meaningful labor.”

The last word is reward. While Moses looks forward to God again breaking into history, revealing His strong right hand, he does not see God’s actions as totally unrelated to man’s activity. We read in verse 17, “May the favor of the Lord our God rest upon us; Establish the work of our hands for us—Yes, establish the work of our hands.” While this life may be characterized by limitations and frustrations, we are not only able to pray that God will change us, but that He will change life. In addition, we may even pray that God would bless the work of our hands by allowing us to accomplish eternal results.

In summary, while God is eternal, man is mortal and his life is severely limited by God’s righteous judgment upon sin. In the psalm Moses petitions first, that God would give us the wisdom to live in this life as it is and in the light of who He is, and secondly, that God would change life to what it should be.

A Suggested Historical Setting

I want to say something briefly about the historical setting of this psalm. First and most importantly, within the psalm no setting is presented. When the historical setting of a psalm is given it is usually included at the beginning in the superscription. In Psalm 90 we are only told that the psalm was written by Moses, the man of God. Thus all suggested historical settings are conjectures.

The liberal scholar denies that Moses wrote this psalm. Those who believe in Moses’ authorship of the psalm almost universally agree that Moses wrote this during the 40 years of Israel’s wilderness wanderings. Moses is thought by most conservative scholars to have penned this psalm in response to the dismal experience of witnessing the deaths of an entire generation of Israelites after Kadesh-Barnea, when they failed to capitalize on the promises of God and go in and possess the promised land.

I have serious problems with this interpretation, for two reasons. First, if the psalm was written during the wilderness experience, why is the exodus never mentioned by Moses? Moses alludes to the creation, the fall, Methuselah, and the flood. Moses never alludes to the exodus. This is especially significant because the exodus experience became the pattern for God’s deliverance of His people. The prophets describe God’s deliverance of Israel from captivity and their return to the land in terms of the exodus motif. They see God acting in the return from Babylon as He did in the exodus.143

While Moses was up on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments, the people below were sinning. Consequently God said to him, “Moses, I’m going to destroy those people and make a new nation out of you” (cf. Exod. 32:9-10). Moses did not plead with God on the grounds of men’s merits, but on the basis of God’s actions at the exodus. He reminded God that He had promised Abram and his descendants that He would make them a great nation and would bring them into the land of Canaan (Exod. 32:11-13). God’s reputation was at stake. At the exodus God established a reputation which must be preserved. Moses pleaded with God on the basis of the exodus. If Moses wrote Psalm 90 during the 40 years of their wilderness wanderings we would expect him to have said “God, please act as you have just acted in the exodus.”

A second problem surfaces in Psalm 90. God is addressed as though He had not recently acted in behalf of His people. “How long?” (v. 13) implies just that.144 Moses is not just speaking to God as though a few years has passed since God had revealed His power and salvation but as if God had long been silent—too long.

In light of these difficulties I suggest that this psalm was not written after the exodus, but before it. I believe Moses wrote it during his 40 years exile from Egypt while tending the flocks of his father-in-law (cf. Exod. 2:15-25). The suffering to which Moses refers is due primarily to Israel’s sin. We may, at first, think this hardly appropriate to the sufferings of Israel in the land of Egypt. However, Ezekiel (20:7-9) speaks of the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt as one that was marked by sin and idolatry. It was sin that brought Israel to Egypt (for example, the sin of Joseph’s brothers, Genesis 37). It was sin, in part, that kept Israel in Egypt. Ezekiel speaks of Israel’s sin after the exodus as that which they brought with them from Egypt (23:8,9,27; cf. also Exod. 20:4-6). The time of Israel’s sojourning in Egypt was a time of sin and the consequences of it, suffering.

No historical time fits Psalm 90 better than the period just preceding the exodus. God had been silent for a long time and had not recently revealed His mighty arm. God’s answer in part, to the petitions of Moses in this psalm, was the exodus. God did reveal His mighty arm and great power through Moses.

Psalm 90 therefore tells us something about the heart of Moses. When we look at Moses standing before the burning bush, there seems to be no reason for God’s selection of him to lead His people out of captivity and into Canaan. Suppose this psalm was written a week before Moses was arrested by the sight of the burning bush. God would then have spoken to Moses from the burning bush, “Moses I heard your prayer. Go deliver your people!” If this is what happened, then God answered Moses’ prayer through him. Such a historical setting is at least a possibility. It helps me understand the agony of soul with which Moses wrote the psalm, as well as the appropriateness of God’s selection of Moses to deliver His people.

Conclusion

The message of Psalm 90, while it is a somber theme, is one that is both true to reality and foundational to a healthy perspective on life. Those who wish only to think positively will not want to ponder this psalm long, but are the very people who need most to grasp its message.

We have all heard the saying “Where there’s life, there’s hope.” Although there is a measure of truth to this statement, Moses informs us in Psalm 90, “In this life there is sadness and shortness, there is frustration and failure.” From a biblical and theological point of view this is not the purpose for which life was first created (Gen. 1–2), nor is it the way life will always be (Rev. 21–22), but in the days between paradise lost (Gen. 3) and paradise regained (Rev. 4–20), this is the way it is.

Noah, who was spared from the destruction of the flood, nevertheless was seen in a drunk and disgusting state afterwards (Gen. 9:18-29). Man’s effort to find security and significance through the building of a city and tower were futile (Gen. 11:1-9). Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, while trusting in the promises of God to give them a land and a great nation (Gen. 12:1-3), did not see it fulfilled in their lifetime. Moses, who led the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, did not himself enter into the land of Canaan (Deut. 31:1-2; 32:48-52; 34:1-8). The Israelites who experienced God’s deliverance from Egypt did not themselves enter into the land (Deut. 1:19-36). Those who did eventually enter into Canaan did not trust God fully and live according to His commandments (e.g. Judges). The prophets who faithfully proclaimed God’s word seldom had great success (cf. Isa. 6:1-10).

Even in the New Testament this present earthly life is not described in euphoric terms. Jesus spoke frequently of the difficulties which His disciples would face (cf. Luke 9:23-26, 57-58; John 15:18-25). Paul (2 Tim. 3:10-13) and Peter (1 Pet. 1:6; 2:18-25; 4:12-19) in their epistles also wrote about the dark side of life.

Paul especially parallels the teaching of Psalm 90 in his letters. In 2 Corinthians 4–5 he speaks of the present tribulations of this life and of the fact that our “outer man” is slowly decaying (4:16). In chapter 5 of the Book of Romans, after introducing the glorious doctrine of justification (3:21-4:25), Paul begins to speak of the hope of the Christian in times of tribulation (5:1-11). It is obvious that our salvation is not immediate deliverance from the trials of life, but rather a deliverance through them.

The clearest word comes from the pen of Paul in Romans 8. After introducing the marvelous ministry of the Holy Spirit, in whom we can live victoriously (8:1-17), Paul goes on to describe a facet of the Spirit’s present ministry, that of sustaining the saint in suffering (8:18-39). In verses 19-23 Paul talks about the whole creation (including man), which presently endures the consequences of the fall of man and expectantly looks for a future deliverance. In verse 20 Paul says that the whole creation “was subjected to futility.” I believe this is the same futility which Moses has poetically described in Psalm 90.

My point is this: life, both in the days of Moses and in the present, is marked by a certain frustration and futility, which are the results of man’s sin. This futility is the theme of the Book of Ecclesiastes—the vanity of which Solomon spoke. The Book of Job presents the same dismal picture of life: “For a man is born for trouble, As sparks fly upward” (Job 5:7, NASB).

I believe that men today spend most of their energy striving to deny this reality of life and to rationalize that with just a little more effort life can be fulfilling. They deceive themselves by thinking that frustration and futility can be eliminated. This world view is best designated by the term “hype.” Life is portrayed in the media in terms of hype. Upbeat music, a denial of the unpleasant, a distorted view of happiness, and a preoccupation with pleasure all are a part of this self-deception.

The Bible doesn’t peddle “hype,” but it does offer hope. The Scriptures do not offer man an immediate deliverance from toil and tribulation, but rather the promise of sins forgiven, of knowing God and of supernatural sustenance in the trials and adversities of life. In the end, we are assured of an eternity in which all of the frustration and futility of life will be done away with.

“Hype” is not only promoted by the world—it is also very popular among Christians. Now none of us really prefers frustration and futility to fulfillment and unbounded happiness, but this is nevertheless the way things are and the way the Bible describes them. Some Christians evangelize with the promise that a faith in Christ is the solution to all of our problems. Some teach that if we only live our lives as Christians by certain formulas, we can be assured of victory and success. Others tell us that if we only have enough faith, no suffering or sorrow needs to be a part of our experience. This, my friend, is worldly “hype,” not Christian hope.

The denial of the truth taught in Psalm 90 leads to devastating consequences. Those who choose to glamorize life and to look at the world through “rose-colored glasses” tend to be unduly optimistic. The result is that rather than turning to God for forgiveness and salvation, they place their trust in themselves and sacrifice a future hope for present pleasures. A false sense of optimism turns men’s minds from God. This is why the good news of the Gospel begins with the bad news of men’s sin and its ugly consequences (Romans 1–3). This is also why our Lord Jesus could say, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matt. 5:3-4, NASB).

Those who see life as bad as it really is will turn to God for help and for hope. Only those who realize they are sick seek healing; only those who know they are lost find salvation.

Whenever we base our faith and our hope on our abilities and our goodness, we are destined for great disappointment. Those who live only for the present set themselves up for a great fall. Human hype is truly false and we must sooner or later see its futility. I personally believe that this greatly helps us to explain the phenomenon which is now called the mid-life syndrome. It is at this stage in mid-life that a man sees his physical strength declining, his aspirations becoming mere dreams and his death approaching. No wonder so many are devastated. Their whole world view has been shattered by the very reality which Moses was teaching.

Another result of the false optimistic view of life is that it creates unrealistic expectations. If life can be beautiful (in the incorrect sense) and if my marriage isn’t everything I had hoped for (and my only hope is for the present), I had better divorce and try again. If my church is not completely satisfying me and meeting my needs, I had better move on. If my job is not totally fulfilling, I should look for something better. Psalm 90 tells us that marriage won’t always be ecstasy, that no church will live up to our (or the Bible’s) ideals, and that work will be frustrating. Since this is to be expected, we should learn to be content with life that is less than ideal, rather than to always be looking for the ideal. (This should not be confused with sinful complacency.) If life is indeed frustrating at times, then we had better not attempt to deny it, nor to escape it, but rather to live in the face of life’s sadness and shortness.

Many respond to man’s plight by some kind of denial; others react with utter despair. While they see through the empty effort of hype, they fail to find hope. Their philosophy is a form of “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” The message of the Bible is the promise of hope. There is salvation for a lost world (man and the creation) which is made possible through the redemptive work of Christ on the cross of Calvary: not only is there hope for the future, but hope for the present. Let us turn our attention to the two petitions of Moses in verses 11-17 to see those things for which man can petition God in order to have hope in a world of frustration and futility.

From verses 11 and 12 we see that we can ask God to provide us with the wisdom to live life in a way that is pleasing to Him. This wisdom begins with a realization of God’s holiness, with a godly fear (v. 11). Wisdom also is manifested by an awareness of the shortness of life and the need to live day by day, numbering and ordering our days so as to please Him (v. 12). This is not something we do in and of ourselves, but something which we seek from God, which we accomplish by His power and for His glory.

In New Testament terms I believe the petition of Moses in verses 11 and 12 can be summed up by the word sanctification, the process of renewal brought about by the power of the Spirit of God in the life of the saint. It involves walking in the Spirit (Romans 8:1-17), putting off the old man and putting on the new (Col. 3:1-17), and the renewing of our minds (Rom. 12:1-2).

Second, the futility and frustration which we see about us should not only motivate us to petition God to change us, but also stimulate us to pray that God will eventually change the entire creation. This is the petition of Moses in verses 13-17.

While I personally believe that the exodus was God’s immediate response to Psalm 90, I also understand that His ultimate response is only partially complete. God has “returned” (v. 13) in the Person of His Son at the incarnation. Nearly 2,000 years ago Christ came to the earth and redeemed the saints and the creation through His death on the cross (Col. 1:13-23, cf. especially v. 20). The full and final transformation is yet to come, both for man (1 Cor. 15:50-58; 1 Thess. 4:13-18) and for creation (Rom. 8:18-23; Rev. 21–22). It is for this final renewal and restoration that we are encouraged to pray: “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven’” (Matt. 6:9-10, NASB).

It is only when our Lord returns that final time to rid the universe of all evil and to renew the heavens and the earth that the futility and frustrations of life will be removed. Toward that end we should work and pray (2 Pet. 3:12); work for the rewards of Christ’s future kingdom and pray for it to come quickly. In the meantime, let us look to Him to renew our hearts and minds to live righteously in a way which pleases Him. Let us neither deny that life is frustrating, nor let us be in despair over this reality. Rather, let us depend upon God for the wisdom and grace required to live in the world as it is, as well as to renew it to what it should be.

139 Some scholars reason that the expression “in all generations” argues against the Mosaic authorship of this psalm, which they would suggest fits better into the period of the Babylonian Exile. They contend that the expression “in all generations” necessitates a longer period of Israel’s history than that which could have occurred by the time of Moses. Let us remember, first of all, that many generations had passed in that period of time covered in the Book of Genesis. Let us also note that the expression not only looks back, but forward (cf. v. 2).

Of the second term, also rendered ‘men’ in the NIV but the Hebrew word adam, Kidner says, “Also children of men could be translated ‘sons of Adam,’ but the allusion, if it is there, is not emphasized.” Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150 (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975), p. 328, fn. 2.

141 Kirkpatrick writes, “… though a man should outlive the years of Methuselah, it is nothing in comparison with eternity.” A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1982), p. 550.

142 I have chosen to preach this series in the Psalms in the NIV. Thus, all Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, will be from the New International Version.

143 I must confess here that the subject of my Master’s thesis in seminary was “The Exodus Motif in Isaiah 40–55.” Moses himself interpreted Exodus as a pattern for future deliverances (cf. Exod. 15:1-11; Deut. 4:32-40; 7:17-19). The “Former Prophets” (the historians) and the “Latter Prophets” (cf. Hos. 7:16; 8:13; 9:3,6; 11:5,11; Jer. 16:14ff.; 23:7ff.; Ezekiel; Isa. 40—55) used the exodus theme and language extensively to picture the future deliverance of Israel, both from her bondage in Babylon and from her bondage in sin. Likewise, our Lord’s work is also described in “exodus” terminology (Luke 9:31). The exodus motif occurs also in the Psalms (cf. 74:12-14; 77:11-20).

144 Westermann writes, “The question ‘How long?’ implies distress of some duration. It is not complaining about a sudden blow just suffered but about constant duress.” Claus Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), p. 177.

9. Psalm 91: A Psalm of Safety

Introduction

My experiences in my recent trip to India gave me a new appreciation for an article I read on my return.

Of Snakes and Tigers and Sending Churches

We were returning from a meeting at Vanar. It was 10 PM and we had to trek 5 Kms through the thick forest braving the cold in order to reach Pipalpada. A bright flashlight and a petromax lit our path. As we were climbing a steep rugged narrow path, Premakar, our home missionary of Dangs cautioned us, “Wagh, Wagh” (tiger). We stopped and our torches flashed at the beast which was 200 yards away. Its glittering eyes menacingly glared at us. In spite of the blinding lights it was advancing towards us. Helpless we turned to Jesus in prayer. To our great relief the beast slinked away. We continued our journey. But within a few yards our petromax failed. Just imagine our plight! It seemed ages before the petromax was fixed. After a short while a poisonous snake slithered past us and the promises of Psalm 91 sustained us.145

Thankfully the cobras and other poisonous vipers were in hibernation during my stay in the mountain village of Chikaldara. The tigers and bears, while inhabiting the area, did not harm me either. Nevertheless, my sense of danger was much more intense while walking in the darkness or through the tall grass, where some creatures could be lurking.

Psalm 91 is familiar to us, in its words, for we often sing it in our worship service, and yet both its symbols and its promise of security are foreign to us. First, the poetic portrayals of danger are not common to us. We never fear snakes or wild animals in the streets of Dallas. Neither arrows flying in the daytime nor pestilence stalking at night are a common dread, such as they would be to others of another time or place.

Second, the security of the saint is unesteemed because most Western Christians know little about danger of any kind, and so the safety of which this psalm speaks is rather abstract. In this message I will try to deal with both of these difficulties, and to suggest ways in which we may find this passage more relevant to our own experience. This psalm is also noteworthy because of the fact that Satan quoted it in his temptation of our Lord (Matt. 4:6). Since he sought to misinterpret and misapply it in the life of our Lord, he will likely attempt to distort its message in our lives. Consequently, we will also consider some of the abuses to which the assurance of our safety can be applied. Let us then consider carefully the message and the meaning of Psalm 91.

The Structure of Psalm 91

I have chosen to follow the paragraph structure (and the translation) of the NASB in this exposition.146 Verses 1-4 introduce the theme of the psalm, the security of the saint. Verses 5-10 pursue the implications of the safety which we have in God. Our safety is further explained in verses 11-13; through His angels God intervenes to come to our aid. In the last section, verses 14-16, God Himself assures us of His intimate care for our safety, promising both help in trouble and ultimately, deliverance from trouble.

The Source of the Saints’ Safety (91:1-4)

1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High Will abide in the shadow of the Almighty. 2 I will say to the LORD, “My refuge and my fortress, My God, in whom I trust!” 3 For it is He who delivers you from the snare of the trapper, And from the deadly pestilence. 4 He will cover you with His pinions, And under His wings you may seek refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark. (NASB)

While verses 1-4 introduce the subject of the saints’ safety, the major emphasis falls upon God Himself. He is our refuge and strength. It is His love and His power which keep us. In verse 1 God is called the “Most High” and the “Almighty” and both terms stress His position and His limitless power.147

Verse 2 is the psalmist’s personal confession of trust. The One in whom the anonymous author148 urges us to place our trust is the One the psalmist has personally found to be trustworthy.

Verses 3 and 4 poetically develop the theme which has been introduced in the first two verses. God is our deliverer (v. 3). His keeping power is portrayed by the use of two images, a mother bird and metal armor (v. 4). The mother bird safely tucks her young under her wings. There they are secure. There is a very tender touch here, stressing the warmth of God’s love and concern.149 Not only is there a tenderness in God’s care, there is also a toughness, as is seen in the imagery of the metal armor (v. 4). From the perspective of the protected, God is warm and tender; from the vantage point of the attacker, God is as strong as steel.

The dangers are likened to a trapper’s snare and a deadly pestilence (v. 3). We should understand these two figures of speech as highly symbolic, emphasizing the elements of surprise and danger.150 The trapper’s snare is not seen until it is too late. The deadly pestilence is fatal. Whether the danger is invisible or incurable, God’s protection is ever adequate.

The Implications of the Saints’ Safety (91:5-10)

The first four verses have turned our attention to the source of our safety; verses 5-10 urge us to consider the confidence such security inspires. No matter what evil threatens (or appears to), we are safe in the shadow of the Almighty. In these verses the more negative or preventative aspects of our safety are explored. Later on, the more positive dimensions are discussed. The results of resting in the shelter of the Most High can be summarized by two expressions: no fear (vv. 5-6) and no fall (vv. 7-10).

Since the source of our safety is God Almighty, no threat or danger, no matter how great, is mightier than God’s keeping power. The dangers which we face are in no way minimized by the psalmist. In fact, a broad range of poetic imagery is employed to encompass the entire range of danger which one might dread. Some have attempted to give a specific interpretation to each image. I do not see this to be either biblically defendable or necessary. The “arrows,” “pestilence” and “destruction” are all poetic devices describing danger, rather than specific definitions of the kind of danger we face. In other psalms human opposition is described in terms of “lions,” “arrows” and “snares” (cf. Ps. 57:4-6; 64:1-6).

Verses 5 and 6 refer to night and day, the darkness of night and the light of day. I understand the psalm to be assuring the saint that God gives us 24-hour protection. There is no threat, whether seen or unseen, anticipated or unexpected, which can catch God unaware and unable to protect us.

In verse 7 the security of the saint is portrayed in a different way. Even when men are “falling about us like flies” (my liberal paraphrase), God is able to keep us. Insurance companies are very interested in statistics. They want to know if you engage in dangerous activities like skin-diving or sky-diving or motorcycle racing. Statistics don’t impress God, nor do they impede His protection. No matter how disproportionate the odds, God’s protection is certain.

There is perhaps no better historical illustration of the truth of verse 7 than the exodus. In Exodus 7–12 the plagues were poured out upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians. In every case, the Egyptians suffered, but not the Israelites who trusted in God.

“But the Lord will make a distinction between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt, so that nothing will die of all that belongs to the sons of Israel.” And the Lord set a definite time, saying, “Tomorrow the Lord will do this thing in the land.” So the Lord did this thing on the morrow, and all the livestock of Egypt died; but of the livestock of the sons of Israel, not one died (Exod. 9:4-6, NASB).

Hail destroyed the crops, the cattle, and the servants of the unbelieving Egyptians, but the Israelites were not harmed (Exod. 9:18-26). The first-born of the unbelieving were all killed by the death angel, but those who believed God, applying the blood of a lamb to the doorposts and the lintel of their house, were not touched (Exod. 12).

This brings us to another aspect of the dangers from which every saint is secure. Not only are we safe from the opposition of wicked men and the forces of evil, we are also protected from the righteous wrath of God. In Psalm 90:7-10, Moses saw man’s suffering as a deserved punishment for sin from the righteous hand of God. Those who “dwell in the shelter of the Most High” need not fear God’s wrath, which is the most awesome danger of all. I believe that this is the primary thrust of verses 8-10: “You will only look on with your eyes, and see the recompense of the wicked. For you have made the Lord, my refuge, even the Most High, your dwelling place. No evil will befall you, nor will any plague come near your tent.”

The wicked will reap divine wrath, which is their recompense (v. 8), but those who have placed their trust in God (v. 9) will never suffer God’s righteous wrath (v. 10).

The protection of those who abide under the shadow of the Almighty should wipe away all unwarranted fear. With God as our shield, we need not dread the opposition of either human or superhuman forces. With God as our refuge we should not fear and we cannot fall. We will certainly not fall under God’s wrath and neither will we fall under the terror of any other. In the words of the New Testament:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, “For Thy sake we are being put to death all day long; we were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:31-39).

This does not mean that the saints will never suffer, for Psalm 90 has already spoken of the condition of man in this present world. In verse 5 we are not told that there is no night terror, but only that we need not fear it when we are under the Divine wings of protection. We are not guaranteed success in every venture nor told that we will never fail, only that we will not fall from God’s purposes and from His protection.151 Kidner’s comments are well worth repeating:

This is, of course, a statement of exact, minute providence, not a charm against adversity. The no less sweeping promise of Romans 8:28 … does not exclude ‘nakedness, or peril, or sword’ (8:35); cf. again the paradox of Luke 21:16,18.152

The Instrument and the Implications of God’s Protection (91:11-13)

11 For He will give His angels charge concerning you, To guard you in all your ways. 12 They will bear you up in their hands, Lest you strike your foot against a stone. 13 You will tread upon the lion and cobra, The young lion and the serpent you will trample down.

I have suggested that the broadest range of opposition and danger is implied in the poetic description of verse 3 and verses 5-10. This would include both divine retribution and demonic opposition. While we know that God’s judgment is no longer our destiny, how is demonic and other opposition thwarted? Verses 11-13 comfort us by reminding us that God’s means of protection are greater than Satan’s means of opposing us. God employs His angels to watch over us. They guard us in all our ways (v. 11).

Verse 12 dramatically describes the extent of God’s care through His angels. Even in minimal danger (“Lest you strike your foot against a stone”), God’s servants, the angels, could bear us up so as to avoid it. Now quite frankly if God is promising that we would never stub our toes, I must be doing something wrong. The promise of protection is stated in a figure of speech to emphasize the minute matters to which God’s care extends, but it is not meant to imply that “toe-stubbing” is never the lot of the saint. While God’s protection extends to the smallest matters, His prevention may include trials both great and small.

In verses 5-10 we saw that God’s protection was intended to put away unhealthy fears and to prevent us from falling (but not from stumbling). These were primarily negative benefits: no fear and no fall. In verse 13 we observe the positive results of the safety that God provides through His angels. Here we find much more than a passive protection. We are told that we will kill cobras and trample down lions.

Now this is something entirely new and exciting. Fear is a paralyzing force. It causes us to become passive, rather than to be aggressive. Fear keeps us from taking initiative and doing anything which isn’t “safe.” Once our inhibiting fears are swept aside by an appreciation of our safety in God’s care, we need not be reticent and retiring. We can boldly confront and even defeat the most fearful opponent. We will take on “lions and cobras” because we know we are safe in God’s keeping, even in the midst of danger. This confidence can be taken to unbiblical extremes, as we shall see later in the message.

God’s Promise of Protection (91:14-16)

14 “Because he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him; I will set him securely on high, because he has known My name. 15 He will call upon Me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble; I will rescue him, and honor him. 16 With a long life I will satisfy him, And let him behold My salvation.” (NASB)

In the final analysis, our safety is only as certain as the guarantee of the God who promises it. We are not safe because we hope so, but because God says so. Just as a buyer is assured by a written guarantee from the manufacturer, so we are assured by God’s personal promise to protect us in verses 14-16. This is the “last word” in terms of our safety. We must be able to answer two questions before we can appreciate the promises found in these verses: “What exactly is God promising to do?” “On what basis does God promise to do it?”

Let us consider what it is that God has promised in verses 14-16. Two terms, “deliver” (v. 14) and “rescue” (v. 15), indicate that God has promised to deliver those who are in danger or great peril. Either God will spare us from a dangerous circumstance or he will bring us safely through the danger. God’s promise is that we should not fear for we cannot fall (vv. 5-10), and He cannot fail (vv. 1-4).

More than just to help us, God has promised to honor us. God says of the one who knows His name, “I will set him on high” (v. 14, KJV).153 In verse 15 He promises to honor him. This means that God will do far more than merely “save us by the skin of our teeth”; He will deliver us with dignity and glory. God’s deliverance of Israel at the exodus was glorious. David’s deliverance from the hand of Gath was divine (1 Sam. 21:10-15; cf. Ps. 34), but it was not dignified.154 In verses 14-16 God promises deliverance and honor.

God promises not only His protection from disaster, but His presence in danger. This is the assurance of the words, “I will be with him in trouble” (v. 15). At times He will pluck us from danger, but when He chooses to preserve us through it He does not abandon us. The three young Hebrew men, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, were not alone in Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace (Dan. 3:25), nor was Daniel alone in the lion’s den (Dan. 6:22). Our Lord personally appeared to Paul during the night as he was imprisoned, threatened by an angry mob (Acts 23:11).

Verse 16 takes God’s deliverance one step further. God will not only save us from death, He will give us long life. I believe this promise should be understood in the light of the Mosaic Covenant (e.g. Deut. 28:1-14) and the other Old Testament assurances that faith and obedience toward God tend toward longer life and prosperity. This, however, was not a guarantee nor a simple formula for success. I understand the term “salvation” to cover a very broad range of meaning, from deliverance out of danger, to long life, to the eternal life which the saint has by faith in God (even though the Old Testament saint did not understand this as fully as we do today).

God therefore promises help, honor and a hope for eternal life. To whom do these promises apply? Who may receive them and how are they obtained? Verses 14-16 also answer these questions.

The promise of help, honor and hope are for those who are in peril. The word “deliver” (v. 14) implies danger. Verse 15 promises that God will answer and be with the one in trouble. It is those in peril who receive God’s help. That is precisely why the woman caught in the act of adultery was forgiven, but the self-righteous Scribes and Pharisees received scathing words of rebuke (cf. John 8:1-11; Matt. 23). Only the sick need to be healed (Mark 2:17) and only those in danger need deliverance.

The promise of God’s help is for those who are personally related to Him. “Because he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him” (v. 14). The second half of this verse goes on to explain that God exalts the one who has known His name. It is only those who intimately know God and love Him who “dwell in the shelter of the Most High” (v. 1) and therefore have assurance of God’s presence and protection.

Finally, those whom God protects are those who petition Him to do so: “He will call upon Me, and I will answer him” (v. 15). Those who ask will receive, and to those who knock the door will be opened (Matt. 7:7-8). Those who recognize their peril and ask for God’s protection, receive it.

Conclusion

Man’s most urgent need is deliverance from the ultimate danger—eternal judgment and separation from God’s presence forever (2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 20:12-15). If you have never come to a personal faith in God, you must first recognize your sinful condition and the danger which this creates (cf. Rom. 1–3). You are a sinner, condemned by God’s righteous law, and destined to eternal punishment (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). Jesus Christ offers you the forgiveness of your sins and the safety of eternal life in the presence of God by acknowledging your sin and trusting in Christ’s death in your place (Rom. 3:21–5:21). By calling upon Him for salvation, you will be delivered from the danger of divine wrath and given the free gift of eternal life in the presence of God (Rom. 10:9-13).

I assume that most of my readers have taken this first step of trusting in Christ and calling upon Him for salvation. If this is not true, what I will now say has no application to your life. If you have experienced the forgiveness of sins in Christ, you can experience the safety and security which this psalm promises by “abiding in the shelter of the Most High” (v. 1).

There are two extremes which Christians should avoid in the application of this psalm to their lives. The first danger is not to take God’s protection seriously enough. Psalm 90 has shown us a healthy, life-giving fear, the fear of God. On the other hand, Psalm 91 exposes a paralyzing fear—the fear of failing and falling under opposition. This fear keeps us from serving God and obeying His word.

Abraham’s fear caused him to lie concerning the true identity of Sarah as his wife (Gen. 12:11-13; 20:11). Moses was afraid to go to Egypt and lead Israel out of captivity (cf. Exod. 3–4). The Israelites feared the “giants” in Canaan and did not possess the land God promised (Num. 13–14).

While there are those who faint due to fear, most of us live so conservatively that we don’t think we have much to fear. We have insurance for our life, our health, our retirement, our wage-earning ability, and so on. We fail to live dangerously and thus we have little danger to fear.

May I suggest to you that living obediently means living dangerously. Discipleship is dangerous. Jesus always discouraged the person who sought the path of least resistance, and encouraged would-be disciples to count the cost (cf. Luke 9:57-62). Paul warned that godly living brings persecution (2 Tim. 3:12), as was evident in his own life (2 Cor. 4:11-13; 2 Tim. 3:10-11).

I want to suggest to you, my Christian friend, that you will never come to appreciate the promises of Psalm 91 until you have experienced the peril of living for God obediently. Look at the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11. These are all men and women who lived dangerously by obeying God’s commands. Abraham was instructed to leave the refuge of his home and family. Moses left the security of his position in Pharaoh’s palace. On and on we find that living by faith is living dangerously.

Have you read through the Sermon on the Mount recently (Matt. 5–7)? If you would dare to live in accordance with our Lord’s teaching I can tell you it is dangerous. The reason why most of us fail to appreciate the dangers of this present age, seen and unseen (cf. Eph. 6:10-20), and the safety which God promises (as in Ps. 91) is because we have failed to live in obedience to His word.

To some, I can confidently say, you should live much more dangerously—but not to all. There is another extreme to be avoided. Some seem to love danger for danger’s sake. They may not be driving race cars at breath-taking speeds or jumping chasms on a motorcycle, but they always seem to be flirting with disaster. To any who might fall in this category, let me remind you of Satan’s abuse of Psalm 91 in the temptation of our Lord, as recorded in Matthew 4. Satan took Jesus into the Holy City and stood Him on the pinnacle of the Temple (Matt. 4:5). In verse 6 we read, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down, for it is written ‘He will give His angels charge concerning You and on their hands they will bear You up, lest You strike Your foot against a stone.’“ Here Satan is quoting Psalm 91:11-12. Satan is saying to the Lord Jesus, “If You are really the Son of God, then You, of all people, can live dangerously. Do you see this pinnacle here? Jump!” Jesus responded in a very interesting way. His reply indicates that while the servant of God may live dangerously, this is not an excuse to live presumptuously. That is why Jesus spoke to Satan about not tempting God.

The life of faith is obeying God, doing what is right, and trusting God to protect us. God didn’t instruct Jesus to “jump,” Satan did. If the Lord Jesus had jumped from the pinnacle of the Temple God would have been forced to act.

Some Christians today like to engage in what I call “Christian gambling.” They are gamblers at heart who have learned to sanctify their actions with Scripture. They love to live on the thin edge of peril. Every time things get dull they precipitate another crisis. “The Lord has told me that I need to buy this or that thing,” they tell us, even though they don’t have a penny. They claim they have acted on faith, trusting God to provide for what they presumptuously purchased. In reality, they have jumped off a financial pinnacle.

Now if God said to you “Do this,” then whether or not you have the means, you had better do it. But many of us give God credit for jumping off of pinnacles that are simply our way of manipulating God and saying to Him, “I’m going to put Your reputation on the line God, and if You don’t come through and do it my way, You are going to look bad.” This is putting God to the test, by demanding that He rescue us from self-made danger. That is not faith, but presumption.

Notice that Jesus said to Satan, “On the other hand, it is written …” (Matt. 4:7). Here our Lord reminds us of an important principle in the interpretation of any passage of Scripture. We must always correlate any Scripture with the entire Bible. The great danger of those who love to live dangerously is that they do so on the basis of isolated passages. Often the excesses of some Christians are the result of taking a single verse and leaping from it, without balancing its truth with other truth. Let us be careful not to confuse faith with foolishness.

One final word. This Psalm teaches an important lesson concerning the strengthening of our faith. The most important thing about faith is not its amount, but its author. Many Christians who wish to grow in faith focus on the identity of their faith, rather than in the quality of faith’s object. If we want to see our faith grow let us dwell upon the Person in whom our faith is rooted, the Almighty, the Most High. He is our security!

145 Reported by V. T. Thomas, Outreach, July 1982, p. 9.

146 One factor that must be taken into account in the study of the structure of Psalm 91 is the change in personal pronouns. In verses 1-4 God is the focus of the psalmist’s attention; in verses 5-10 it is the reader who is central; in verses 11-13 we have an interplay between God’s angels (“they”) and the reader (“you”); in verses 14-16 there is an interplay between God (“I”) and the reader (“you”). While a variety of explanations (and translations) result from the change in pronouns, this suggestion is most interesting: “It has also been suggested that the Psalm was intended to be sung antiphonally; one voice or choir chanting vv.1,2, and another answering in vv. 3-8; the first striking in again in v. 9a, and the second again responding in vv. 9b-13, while a third recited the Divine speech in vv. 14-16.” A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982 [reprint]), p. 554.

147 “MostHigh is a title which cuts every threat down to size; Almighty (Shaddai) is the name which sustained the homeless patriarchs (Ex. 6:3).” Kidner, p. 332. Kirkpatrick writes of these same two terms, “Significant titles, chosen to emphasize the power of the Sovereign Ruler of the world to defend His people.” Kirkpatrick, p. 555.

148 No author is named. Among the list of possible authors I would like to add Moses. The language of all three psalms (90-92) is similar, as Kirkpatrick points out (p. 553). This psalm beautifully compliments Psalm 90, as Kirkpatrick (p. 554) also has noted.

149 Christ also displays His tenderness toward Jerusalem by the figure of a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wing (Matt. 23:37). Tenderness does not rule out toughness, as anyone knows who has ever incurred the wrath of a mother bird by molesting her young.

151 The mantle of divine protection may sometimes be temporarily removed. Satan was allowed to test Job, for example. Yet this was for Job’s ultimate good. So, too, the protection of God is sometimes removed in order to discipline a disobedient Christian, but this, too, is for the good of the wayward saint (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5).

152 Derek Kidner, p. 333.

153 The NASB renders the second line of verse 14 in such a way as to stress the deliverance of God. God lifts us up, as it were, beyond the reach of our adversaries. This is a very legitimate translation and true to the way the Hebrew expression can be rendered. It can also mean “to lift up” in the sense of “exalt” (cf. Ps. 69:30; 148:13). I personally think both senses are intended in Psalm 91:14. God not only lifts us up to deliver us, but to exalt us, as verse 15 (“honor”) clearly states.

154 Psalm 34 clearly indicates that God’s deliverance from Achish was accomplished supernaturally in spite of his faining insanity. David’s rescue from Gath was not dignified because David was not depending upon God but upon his own clever intentions. Psalm 91 teaches us that God delivers and honors those who call upon Him for assistance. When we resort to our own foolish devices, God may graciously deliver us, but He will certainly not honor us.

10. Psalm 92: Worship—Our Delight and Our Duty

Introduction

Once when I was jogging I had to wait at an intersection for the light to change. Also waiting at the intersection was a man in his car, anxious to make a right hand turn. He was impatient because the car ahead of him would not turn on a red light. He did not see the pedestrian in the crosswalk for whom the man in front was waiting. Furiously he honked his horn and raced his motor. When the car ahead of him finally cleared the intersection the angry motorist behind him took off with his tires squealing. He quickly passed the motorist who had caused his delay, glaring and shaking his fist at him.

His satisfaction at having vented his frustration was momentary, however. Not only had this hostile fellow failed to observe the pedestrian in the crosswalk, he had also overlooked the patrol car at the other side of the intersection. To the smell of smoking tires was added the sound of a siren and the sight of flashing lights. As I watched this little scene I felt a tremendous sense of elation as the policeman proceeded to give him a citation. Generally speaking whenever we feel good at such times we also feel guilty. We wonder if it’s really right to rejoice when the wicked are punished. Should the saint be happy when the sinner gets his due?

Psalm 92 forces us to consider this matter because it is a psalm of worship. In this passage God is being praised by the psalmist for destroying the wicked and exalting the righteous above his enemies. How is it possible that a godly person can rejoice at the destruction of the wicked? What makes us feel guilty about the punishment of evildoers when the psalmist feels glad? This is the problem which our passage poses, and the purpose of our study will be to attempt to find a satisfactory solution. The lesson which this psalm teaches should have profound implications in our lives. Let us consider this text prayerfully, asking God to give us insight and understanding.

The Worthiness of Worship (92:1-3)

1 A Psalm, a Song for the Sabbath day. It is good to give thanks to the LORD, And to sing praises to Thy name, O Most High; 2 To declare Thy lovingkindness in the morning, And Thy faithfulness by night, 3 With the ten-stringed lute, and with the harp; With resounding music upon the lyre. (NASB)

The superscription of Psalm 92 does not identify the author, but it does provide a very interesting comment about the use of the psalm. We are told that it is “a psalm for the Sabbath day.” As such, it is the only psalm in the Hebrew text of the psalter that is designated as a Sabbath psalm. This suggests that our psalm focuses on the area of worship. The first three verses confirm this by emphasizing the worthiness of worship.

Let us consider, first of all, the blessedness of worship. When the writer says “It is good to give thanks to the Lord,” we probably fail to fully grasp the fact that worship is a delight, a pleasure. We have been conditioned to view the word “good” as meaning something beneficial. For example, all of us can remember our mother saying to us, “Take this, it’s good for you.” Now castor oil, spinach and rectal thermometers may be “good” for us in the utilitarian sense, but they are no pleasure. The psalmist means for us to understand that worship is good in that it is pure pleasure to those who truly love God.

Then again, it is also true that worship is “good for us” because it does benefit us. This aspect of worship is more fully developed in Psalm 95, another lesson in this series. Worship brings about positive results in our lives.

There is yet another sense in which “good” refers to worship as appropriate. It is appropriate, it is morally good, it is proper to respond to God with praise. God’s activity in the world is intended to bring praise to Himself (cf. Eph. 1:6, 12, 14). Jesus told the woman at the well that God is seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:23). Worship is perhaps the most worthy of all activities for it brings pleasure to God as well as pleasure to us. The appropriateness of worship is one of the principal themes of our psalm. Worship is a many splendored thing. It is a delight and a duty. This is summed up in another psalm: “Praise the Lord! For it is good to sing praises to our God; for it is pleasant and praise is becoming” (Ps. 147:1).

We also learn from verses 1-3 some of the manifestations of worship. Not only does worship have numerous benefits, it also takes a variety of forms. There are several expressions that are used in these verses to describe the various acts of worship which are encouraged. The first is “to give thanks” (v. 1, NASB). We have already discussed the concept of thanks in a previous lesson. Actually there is no one expression in the Hebrew language which is equivalent to our expression, “thanks.” When we speak of giving thanks to the Lord we are talking more about praise, than simply thanksgiving. We are acknowledging God for who He is, for His actions.

The second expression of our worship is “singing praises” (v. 1b). This is actually the verb form of the word “psalm” in the superscription. To “sing praises” is “to psalm.” So the worship of God is expressed by praising Him “… with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (Col. 3:16).

Verse three further pursues the subject of musical praise. Singing praises is surely one form of worship, but in the third verse we are taught that singing with musical accompaniment may be more inspiring. The “ten-stringed lute,” the “harp” and the “lyre” are singled out. The psalmist (who was surely a musician) reminds us that our singing is often enhanced when it is accompanied by musical instruments. Frankly I puzzle at those who conclude that worship in the New Testament involves unaccompanied singing. Whenever accompaniment enhances our singing, it enriches our worship. Music is a significant part of our worship experience because it is one means by which we may express our gratitude and adoration toward God.

The word used to describe a third manifestation of worship is “declare” (v. 2). It is impossible for any definition to encompass the broad sense of this word. It often means “to make known.” Frequently “declare” is used in the sense of revealing something that is not known, bringing it to the surface, making public what is unknown. For example, when Abraham had lied to Pharaoh, the Egyptian potentate asked him, “Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?” (Gen. 12:18). What he meant was, “Why didn’t you expose the truth? Why did you conceal the truth from me?”

“Declare” means “to make known” in an even broader sense. We can make something public that has been private. There is an unpleasant example of this use of “declare” in Genesis 9:22. When Noah became drunk and was lying naked in his tent, Ham “told” his brothers. He published what should have remained secret. Shem and Japheth’s response was exactly the opposite. They went in to cover up the sin that he had made public.

While Ham was wrong to publicize his father’s sin, his evil deed does serve to illustrate one manifestation of worship. Worship involves proclaiming God’s goodness to others. God is exalted by our public praise. Let me attempt to illustrate this. It is fitting for a husband to tell his wife privately that he loves her. I know many wives would like to hear this more often. Yet it is more noteworthy when a husband praises his wife before others, as the husband of the ideal wife is said to do: “Her children rise up and bless her; her husband also, and he praises her, saying: ‘Many daughters have done nobly, but you excel them all’” (Prov. 13:28-29).

Worship provides us with the opportunity to say publicly of God what we should be saying privately to Him. Worship is declaring God’s goodness and greatness.

There are various manifestations of worship. I do not understand the psalmist to imply that praising, psalming and proclaiming are the only forms of worship. Here he is dealing specifically with a “Song for the Sabbath.” This is how the Psalm was used. In the context of the Sabbath day worship, praising, psalming and proclaiming are all a duty and a delight to the one who trusts in God.

The Motivation and Basis for Worship (92:4-15)

4 For Thou, O LORD, hast made me glad by what Thou hast done, I will sing for joy at the works of Thy hands. 5 How great are Thy works, O LORD! Thy thoughts are very deep. 6 A senseless man has no knowledge; Nor does a stupid man understand this: 7 That when the wicked sprouted up like grass, And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore. 8 But Thou, O LORD, art on high forever. 9 For, behold, Thine enemies, O LORD, For, behold, Thine enemies will perish; All who do iniquity will be scattered.

10 But Thou hast exalted my horn like that of the wild ox; I have been anointed with fresh oil. 11 And my eye has looked exultantly upon my foes, My ears hear of the evildoers who rise up against me. 12 The righteous man will flourish like the palm tree, He will grow like a cedar in Lebanon. 13 Planted in the house of the LORD, They will flourish in the courts of our God. 14 They will still yield fruit in old age; They shall be full of sap and very green, 15 To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. (NASB)

In the first line of verse 4 the psalmist tells us his motivation: “For Thou, O Lord, has made me glad …” The worship of the psalmist is an overflow of the joy and gladness God has given him. Worship is not a drudgery, it is a delight. It is something that we should look forward to doing. When I was younger I used to look at worship differently. I went to our church services thinking in terms of the minutes (then it seemed like hours) that I had to endure. I now see that I lacked the joy which the psalmist displays here. I question however, if most of what we traditionally call “worship” is really the worship which the psalmist describes.

Verse four also introduces the subject of the basis for worship: “For Thou, O Lord, has made me glad by what Thou hast done, I will sing for joy at the works of Thy hands.”

Pardon me for this play on words, but worship is not hysterical, it is historical. Many people, when they come to worship, do it in some kind of ecstasy that is not rooted in history. It is merely existential and emotional activity in which one works up a kind of giddiness that hardly relates to reality. Often this kind of ecstasy denies reality. The worship of which the psalmist speaks is historical worship. He is worshipping God for who He is and for what He does: “For Thou O Lord hast made me glad by what Thou hast done.” He sings for joy at the works of God’s hands.

Verses 5-15 now expand on verse 4, describing God’s work which motivates the psalmist to worship Him joyfully. Specifically, the work of God has to do with the punishment of the wicked and the exaltation and reward of the righteous. Verse 5 introduces the major section of the psalm: “How great are Thy works, O Lord! Thy thoughts are very deep.” As in other passages, “God’s thoughts” mean His purposes (cf. Ps. 40:5; Prov. 16:3; Isa. 55:8; 66:18; Jer. 29:11; 49:20; 51:29). This is also true in Romans 11:33. After the apostle Paul finished his explanation of God’s purposes of saving the Gentiles through Jewish unbelief and then saving the Jews through the belief of the Gentiles, he finishes with these words of praise: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable are His ways!” (Rom. 11:33).

In a like manner, the psalmist is meditating on the works of God and the purposes of God. He continues in verses 6 and 7: “A senseless man has no knowledge; nor does a stupid man understand this; that when the wicked sprouted up like grass, and all who did iniquity flourished, it was only that they might be destroyed forevermore” (Ps 92:6-7). In the NASB you will see a colon at the end of verse 6. This indicates that what the “stupid man” doesn’t understand is given in verses 7ff. The “stupid man” doesn’t understand that the wicked thrive for a short time, only to be destroyed. Kidner differs with this interpretation.155 He suggests that the word “this” in verse 6b can just as easily look backward as it can forward. Therefore verses 5 and 6 may very well be saying: “How great are Thy works O Lord! Thy thoughts are very deep. A senseless man has no knowledge; nor does a stupid man understand this.” Understood in such a way we hear the psalmist saying that the senseless man does not comprehend, he does not grasp the greatness of God as demonstrated by His works. He does not fathom the working of God in His purposes.

The word “senseless” (v. 6) is a descriptive term used of animals. Animals differ from men in that men have the ability to reason and to revere God. The man who cannot understand God’s works is beastly or brutish. The man who will not praise God for His works and His worth is really no better than the cow out in the field. Interestingly enough, those who are senseless and brutish are inclined to accuse Christians of being irrational. What is the intellectual sophistication of our age saying, if not that Christians are those who have taken off their heads? The psalmist says these fools are guilty of their own charges.

Not only does “this” refer back to verse 5, I believe it also refers to verse 7 as well. The failure of the brutish to understand God and to worship Him for His works leads them to err in regard to their own destiny. They are totally unaware of the judgment which awaits them: “That when the wicked sprouted up like grass, and all who did iniquity flourished, it was only that they might be destroyed forevermore” (Ps. 92:7). This verse contains a contrast between the apparent prosperity of the wicked and the certainty of their demise. The sudden prosperity and growth of the wicked is like that of the weeds which appear every spring. They sprout rapidly—long before the grass and the flowers, but they are gone just as quickly. Viewed from the short-term perspective the wicked seem to have it made, but from an eternal viewpoint, they have had it.

A second contrast should be observed between man’s finite and fallible perception of things and God’s eternal and unchanging purposes. The wicked man perceives that his prosperity is the consequence of his sin. After all, why sin if it isn’t pleasant and profitable? God’s purpose for the wicked is not that they should prosper, but that they should perish. Just as the purpose for the grass, which momentarily flourishes, is for it to die, so God’s purpose for the wicked is to perish. God’s purposes indeed are deep!

The pinnacle of the psalm is found in verse 8: “But Thou, O Lord, art on high forever.” This statement is not only central to the message of the psalm, it is positionally at the center. While the other verses each have two lines, this verse has only one. It falls exactly in the middle of the psalm. Some see this as a clue to the structure of the psalm.156 Not only is this verse at the center of the psalm formally, it is at the center theologically. In verse 1 God is called “O Most High.” In verse 8 He is said to be “on high.” In verse 15 the Lord is “upright,” exalted on the praises of the psalmist. That God is “on high forever” is the basis of our praise, of God’s punishment of the wicked and His prospering of the righteous.

The “senseless man” of verse 6 tends to elevate himself in his own eyes. He, like grass, sprouts up, but not to any lofty height. From this very puny and perilous height the wicked man will plunge into destruction. In contrast to the wicked, God is truly lifted up. He is “on high forever.” Because wicked men do not know or understand God, they only compare themselves to other men. Thus, they think too highly of themselves and they fail to fear God and to dread their ultimate destiny apart from Him. For the psalmist the truth that God is “Most High” is the basis for worship and praise. For the “senseless man” it is the occasion for his destruction.

Because God is exalted, He will bring about the downfall and the destruction of the wicked, who not only fail to praise Him, but who persist in their sin: “For, behold, Thine enemies, O Lord, for, behold, Thine enemies will perish; all who do iniquity will be scattered” (Ps. 92:9).

Because God is exalted, He will also exalt those who trust in Him. Not only is it God’s purpose to destroy the wicked (v. 7), it is God’s promise to exalt the righteous. In verses 10-11 the psalmist describes what seems to be a recent experience in which God exalted him above his foes: “But Thou has exalted my horn like that of the wild ox; I have been anointed with fresh oil. And my eye has looked exultantly upon my foes, my ears hear of the evildoers who rise up against me.”

In verse 10 the psalmist employs two images or figures of speech to describe the way God exalted him. The first is the horn of a wild ox, and the second is the anointing of the head with oil. Elsewhere in Scripture the horn is employed as a symbol of strength and power. In Deuteronomy 33:17 Joseph’s victory over his enemies is likened to the power of the ox’s horn as it pushes and prevails over its prey. In 1 Samuel 2:1 Hannah’s “horn” is exalted when God gave her a child, thereby giving her victory over her adversary, Peninnah (1 Sam. 1:6). Frequently this figure is used to symbolize strength, power, and honor (cf. Job 16:15; Ps. 22:21; 75:4-5, 10; 89:17, 24; 112:9; 148:14). Thus, as the ox triumphs over its prey with its horns, so the psalmist has prevailed over his enemies.

In the Old Testament, the anointing of the head with oil sometimes signifies the induction of a man into a high office, such as that of the high priest or the king (cf. Ex. 29:21; 2 Sam. 1:21; 1 Ki. 1:39). Even more to the point is the use of the term “oil” in 2 Samuel 14:2. Here the absence of the anointing of the head with oil serves to indicate that one is in a state of mourning or distress. Anointing the head with oil therefore signifies joy, contentment, and satisfaction (cf. Ps. 23:5; 45:7; 104:15; Prov. 27:9; Eccl. 9:8; Ezek. 16:9).

While verse 10 stresses the exaltation of the psalmist, verse 11 emphasizes the enemies over whom God had made him triumphant: “And my eye has looked exultantly upon my foes, my ears hear of the evildoers who rise up against me.” Just as God triumphs over His enemies, those who trust in God are made to triumph over their adversaries. In order for us to be exalted above our foes they must be God’s enemies. By choosing to worship God for His works we align ourselves with Him against His enemies. Now, His enemies are our enemies. Since He will always triumph over His adversaries, we will be exalted above our foes.

From his personal experience of victory over his enemies (vv. 10-11) the psalmist moves on to a general principle which should now be evident: God not only destroys His enemies, He also delivers His servants and causes them to prosper: “The righteous man will flourish like the palm tree, he will grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Planted in the house of the Lord, they will flourish in the courts of our God. They will still yield fruit in old age; they shall be full of sap and very green” (Ps. 92:12-14).

We can only appreciate the imagery of the tree in verses 12-14 as we recall the imagery of the grass in verses 6-7. The word “flourish” occurs in verse 7 and again in verse 13 to highlight the contrast which is intended here. The wicked quickly flourish for a time, but they also quickly perish, like grass. The righteous flourish like trees, not like grass. They may not prosper as rapidly, but their prosperity is permanent.

Like the stately palm or the sturdy cedar, the righteous will prosper (v. 12). Verse 13 describes the righteous “trees” as growing in the “courts of our God.” Eastern homes often have courtyards in which trees might grow. Here it is the courts of God where the trees are planted and prosper. In light of the fact that this is a Sabbath psalm, I believe the writer is reminding the faithful Israelite that the basis for the growth and prosperity of the righteous is their relationship to God. His work is to cause the wicked to perish and the righteous to flourish. What better place is there to grow than in God’s courts? Is it not when we are at worship that we are most secure and our future prosperity is most certain? It is at worship, not at work, that we prosper most. I think this is what God meant for men to learn when he gave them the Sabbath day in which to cease from work and to worship.

While the prosperity of the wicked is short-lived, the blessings of the righteous are eternal. The grass quickly sprouts and then soon perishes, but the tree is a more permanent plant. In old age it is still fruitful (cf. Isa. 65:22-23). Like Joshua and Caleb (Josh. 14:10-11), youthfulness and virility will not be lost with age. In tree terminology they “will be full of sap and very green” (v. 14).

Verse 15 proclaims God’s purpose for prospering the righteous: “To declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.” While the righteous are able to see the mighty hand of God in their lives, the wicked have no comprehension of things which are spiritual (cf. vv. 5-6). In previous verses we have seen the psalmist praise God because he has exalted him above his enemies. Verse 15 explains that one of God’s purposes for exalting the righteous is so that they might praise Him. From the psalmist’s point of view he praises God for His gracious acts. From God’s point of view He acts graciously in order to be praised.

The Hebrew text clearly indicates two purpose statements in this psalm. The first is found in verse 7c. The wicked were allowed to prosper momentarily (v. 7a,b) in order that God might destroy them forever. The second purpose statement is found in verse 15. We are told that God causes the righteous to flourish (vv. 12-14) in order that they may praise Him. God prospers us and protects us from our foes. God gives us length of days and strength in our old age so that we may be able to proclaim that He is upright (v. 15).

This is a very important point for those of us who tend to focus on ourselves, rather than on God. God does not promise to bless us only for our own benefit. He blesses us so that we will have the motivation and the means to praise Him. Blessing, then, is not so much an end, as a means to an end. Its ultimate purpose is to promote our praise.

Conclusion

The message of this psalm can be largely summed up in two categories: (1) the goodness of praise; and, (2) the grounds for praise. Let us quickly review these two important truths.

(1) Praise is good in that it is appropriate. Nothing is so becoming to the saint as praise. Praise is also good in that it is a delight. It is the cause of great joy and fulfillment in the life of the devoted believer. There is fulfillment and satisfaction in doing what we were created to do.

(2) Psalm 92 provides us with two of the principle grounds of praise. In general, these can both be seen as the work of God (v. 4). In greater detail, the work of God entails the punishment of the wicked (vv. 6-9) and the prosperity of the righteous (vv. 10-14). In both the destruction of the wicked and the exaltation of the righteous the purpose of God is to bring praise to His name.

I doubt very much that any would challenge the fact that God prospers the righteous to prompt us to praise. However, when it comes to the destruction of the wicked, perhaps this raises some eyebrows. Stop and think for a moment of some particular occasions at which God is praised for the destruction of the wicked. After God destroyed men, crops and cattle in the exodus, the people of God praised Him with these words: “I will sing to the Lord for He is highly exalted; the horse and its rider He has hurled into the sea. The Lord is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation.”

In the Book of Judges we find the song of Deborah the prophetess: “Thus let all Thine enemies perish O Lord; but let those who love Him be like the rising of the sun in its might” (Judg. 5:31).

Hannah was provoked by her bitter rival (Peninnah) because she was unable to bear children (1 Sam. 1:2, 6). When God graciously opened her womb she praised God with this prayer: “My heart exults in the Lord; my horn is exalted in the Lord, my mouth speaks boldly against my enemies, because I rejoice in Thy salvation.”

Those who contend with the Lord will be shattered; against them He will thunder in the heavens, the Lord will judge the ends of the earth; and He will give strength to His king, and He will exalt the horn of His anointed (1 Sam. 2:1, 9-10).

In the Book of Revelation, the same kind of worship occurs. God is praised for the destruction of the wicked as well as for His blessing of the righteous:

And the twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshipped God, saying, “We give Thee thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who art and who wast, because Thou has taken Thy great power and hast begun to reign. And the nations were enraged, and Thy wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to give their reward to Thy bond-servants the prophets and to the saints and to those who fear Thy name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth” (Rev. 11:18).

And I heard the angel of the waters saying, “Righteous art Thou, who art and who wast, O Holy One, because Thou didst judge these things; for they poured out the blood of the saints and prophets, and Thou hast given them blood to drink. They deserve it” (Rev. 16:5-6).

Distressing as it may be, the author of Psalm 92 and many devout worshippers praised God for the defeat of their enemies. How could they possibly do so and yet remain righteous? We must be certain that our enemies are God’s enemies. God prospers us because we worship Him, and He punishes the wicked because they refuse to bow down before Him. Those who reject God are the enemies of God’s people (cf. John 15:18-20).

The righteous may also praise God because He is their avenger. God punishes the wicked and exalts the righteous above their enemies. Nowhere does this psalm teach us to seek revenge.

Our difficulty in praising God for the destruction of our enemies arises from our failure to distinguish who our adversaries are. In fact, most of us don’t want any enemies. The psalmist is so allied with God that he recognizes God’s enemies are his enemies. If we refuse to take sides, then the wicked will be our friends and God will be our adversary (James 4:4; Matt. 6:24). We not only can rejoice, we ought to rejoice when God’s enemies are destroyed.

Our problem today, as it has been throughout all time, is a misguided sense of mercy. God commanded the Israelites at their entrance into the promised land to absolutely abolish the Canaanites, men, women, children and cattle. This was an incredibly difficult assignment. I think it would be just as difficult for us as it was for the Israelites of ancient times. However, we fail to grasp that the wicked are God’s foes. Thus the Canaanites, a wicked people, were to be destroyed because they were the enemies of God.

In Matthew 5:29, when the Lord Jesus talked about the sin of adultery, He said, “If your right eye causes you to stumble pluck it out. If your right hand offends you cut it off. It is better to lose your eye or your hand than to be cast into hell.” Our real problem is that we are not merciless against the wicked because we are not merciless with sin. The reason why we are reticent to deal with God’s enemies is because we don’t fully appreciate God’s righteousness nor do we share His hatred of sin. If we foster sin in our own lives, then surely we will be the first to take up a stone to cast at others. That was the point Jesus was making when He said to the religious leaders who were eager to condemn the woman taken in adultery, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7). The reason why we are not eager to condemn the wicked is that we are too closely associated with wickedness. We cannot condemn the sins of others which we condone in ourselves.

Our problem is friendship with the world. We are like Lot of old in our attitude toward sin. Lot lived in Sodom and Gomorrah, and while Peter said that his righteous soul was vexed (2 Pet. 2:8), we observe that God had to virtually drag Lot out of that wicked place. Even though the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah vexed him, he did not want to leave. He had an attraction to sin as well as a repulsion for it. When Abram appealed to God concerning these cities, he interceded for the sake of the righteous who would have been destroyed. Here, then, is the difference between Abraham and Lot. Lot had mercy on the wicked, while Abraham was concerned for the righteous.

Worship is good. It is appropriate. It is a delight. Worship is the basis for God’s blessings. Those who refuse to worship God fall justly under His wrath and face eternal destruction. Both the punishment of the wicked and the prosperity of the righteous are grounds for further worship. If the failure to worship God has such serious repercussions, what implications does this have concerning the matter of worship? Not only is worship a good thing, the failure to worship God is an exceedingly great evil.

Let us not forget the message of Psalm 92 in the light of the two psalms which precede it. I have already suggested that Psalms 90-92 are placed together because they are complimentary. Psalm 90 stresses the futility of life in the light of man’s sinfulness. There is hope for all who recognize this futility fear God, trust in Him for grace to live in the world as it is and petition Him to come to restore the universe to what it should be. Psalm 91 is addressed to those who, as a result of trusting in God, face great danger and opposition. Its message to us is that, in God’s hand, we are absolutely safe and secure. Security doesn’t mean evil will never befall us, but that calamity will not befall us which is contrary to God’s promises and our ultimate prosperity. Psalm 92 compliments and completes the other two psalms by impressing upon us the purpose of God’s work, both in saving us and in keeping us safe and secure, to bring praise to Himself.

Yet another lesson can be learned from Psalm 92. Often we try to motivate people to godly living by stressing that it is their duty, rather than showing them it is their delight. In verse 2 I understand the psalmist to be saying that evangelism is an outgrowth of worship. We have seen that worship involves the declaration of God’s lovingkindness and faithfulness morning and night. The worship of God must be public. Evangelism is seen by the psalmist as an act of worship. While there is a sense in which this is a duty, the psalmist stresses its delight.

I believe that this note of “delight” is many times missing not only in our worship, but in our witnessing and in all of the works we do as a “duty”. The core of everything we do should be worship. We should do it because we delight in God, because He has made us glad by the works of His hands. Notice how the apostle Paul introduces the section dealing with our responsibilities as Christians. He turns our attention to the mercies of God. He talks of our service as an act of worship motivated by a gladness of heart:

I urge you therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect (Rom. 12:1-2).

I would like to suggest that most of us are trying to motivate Christians to do what they ought to do purely on the basis of their duty. God speaks of our service in terms of a duty which is delightful. His will is not only perfect, but also good and acceptable.

The purpose of evangelism is praise, to glorify God. The salvation of souls is God’s business. The primary purpose of evangelism is the proclamation of the goodness of God. Many times the reason why people are not attracted by our witness is because it is only a duty and not a delight. It is not a witness which is an overflow of gladness in response to God’s work in our life. It is a duty that we begrudgingly perform. This is much the way our worship is. It is not an overflow of the working of God in our life, it is a simple duty that we grind out. Worship ought to be the core, the foundation, of all our works. Ultimately all of God’s works are for one purpose—to bring praise to His name through our worship: “He predestined us to adoption as sons … to the praise of the glory of His grace … to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory” (Eph. 1:6, 12, cf. also v. 14).

Worship should be at the heart of everything we do. If we rightly respond to the works of God we will respond in worship. If we are rightly obedient to God we will do it as an act of worship. Let us all seek to be better worshippers of God, not only as our duty, but as our delight.

156 Psalm 92 may exhibit an arch-form structure with verse 8 appearing at the apex of the arch. Clues to this structure include: (1) each verse in the psalm has two lines, but verse 8 only has one line; (2) verse 8 is positionally at the center of the psalm—the 108 Hebrew words are equally distributed on either side of the two central words of verse 8 (“exalted forever”); and (3) the name Yahweh occurs in verses 1, 8, and 15 with the remaining four uses equally divided in the lines preceding and following verse 8. If Psalm 92 exhibites an arch-form structure, then verse 8 is given special emphasis since it is at the apex. Thus the psalmist accentuates the sovereign position of God in destroying the wicked and exalting the righteous above their adversaries (cf. Jonathan Magonet, “Some Concentric Structures in Psalms,” The Heythrop Journal 23 (1982):365-76).

11. Psalm 94: The Psalmist Speaks When Society Sins

Introduction

The founding fathers of our country sought to establish a nation where men would be free to worship as they chose. Government was to protect man’s freedom to worship, not to infringe upon it. We now have come full circle. Today our government seems intent upon prohibiting religious groups such as the Gideons from distributing copies of the Bible to our school children, yet evolutionism and humanism are freely propagated and promoted in the classroom. In schools Bible reading and prayer is prohibited by government, yet it provides our children with birth control pills and pays for their abortions, while denying the parents of these children even the knowledge that such “services” are being furnished. Government now seems more inclined to prosecute religion than to protect it.

Such evils, while frustrating to Christians in our day, are not unique to 20th century America. The author of Psalm 94157 also lived in a time when his government was engaged in the promotion of evil and the persecution of the righteous. The wicked arrogantly furthered their own interests at the expense of those who were defenseless: the widows, the aliens, and the orphans (v. 6). Government had formed an evil alliance with these oppressors. Indeed, wickedness was even legislated (v. 20). The unjust of the psalmist’s day not only prospered, they seemed to prevail. The evil-doers were not forced to clandestine meetings and dark alleys; they congregated in the Congress and in the White House of the land.

The evils against which the psalmist protested were those which had been practiced over a considerable time (cf. v. 3). Apparently things had deteriorated to the point that the righteous were unable to reverse the trend. Protest no longer could be expected to change matters; at best it would be ignored and at worst it would result in scorn and persecution (cf. vv. 17,21). In spite of this, the psalmist boldly addressed God, the wicked, and the righteous. His words are as relevant to us today as they were to the people of his own day. Let us look carefully at this psalm for a word from God to those who dwell in a sinful society.

The Psalmist Speaks to God About Sinners(94:1-7)

1 O LORD, God of vengeance; God of vengeance, shine forth! 2 Rise up, O Judge of the earth; Render recompense to the proud. 3 How long shall the wicked, O LORD, How long shall the wicked exult? 4 They pour forth words, they speak arrogantly; All who do wickedness vaunt themselves. 5 They crush Thy people, O LORD, And afflict Thy heritage. 6 They slay the widow and the stranger, And murder the orphans. 7 And they have said, “The LORD does not see, Nor does the God of Jacob pay heed.” (NASB)

The psalmist first addresses God regarding the wicked. The first seven verses of the psalm are addressed to God, petitioning Him to act to avenge the oppressed and punish the wicked. Verses 1-3 plead with God to judge the wicked because it is His responsibility to do so. The psalmist describes the evil deeds (vv. 4-6) and the feeble defense (v. 7) of the wicked, which are worthy of God’s wrath.

Verses 1-7 strongly imply that the psalmist believed God alone was able to correct the evils of his day. From a human perspective, the righteous have not been able to successfully resist the plots of the wicked, who now have the authority of the government behind them, or who, worse yet, are the government (vv. 20, 21). The twice used expression “how long” (v. 3) indicates that the conditions against which the psalmist protests were of some duration. God alone can handle this matter because men have not been successful in restraining evildoers.

Far more importantly, the psalmist calls upon God to act because it is His responsibility to do so. God is the “Judge of the earth” (v. 2), an expression found first in Genesis 18:25, and later in the Psalms (58:11; 82:8). In addition, God is called the “God of vengeance” twice in verse 1. Retribution is God’s responsibility: ‘Vengeance is Mine, and retribution’ (Deut. 32:35).

The expression “God of vengeance” may not accurately convey the psalmist’s meaning. As it stands thus translated we might conclude that God is vengeful.158 While wrath towards sin is one dimension of God’s character, it is not the sum total of His character. The King James Version seems to have caught the force of the psalmist’s words better by its rendering: “… God to whom vengeance belongeth.” By this we are informed that vengeance does belong to God and not to man. If there is to be retribution, let God perform it, for it is His responsibility. The psalmist understood this and therefore appealed to God to appear, to “shine forth,” manifesting Himself in power and glory and bringing justice to the earth (cf. Ps. 50:2; 80:1,19).

Vengeance is set forth as God’s responsibility in verses 1-3. In verses 4-7 the psalmist seeks to prove that vengeance is deserved by describing the deeds of the wicked. The evildoers were said to exult (v. 3). The Berkeley Version renders the wicked as “jubilant.” The idea seems to be that the wicked prevail, and they triumphantly rejoice. The wicked arrogantly flaunt their success (cf. v. 4).

The wicked also oppress and persecute men. They prey upon those for whom God has a special concern. The oppressed are God’s people, His heritage (v. 5). The victims of these cruel men are the helpless among God’s people: the widow, the orphan, and the sojourner (v. 6). The wicked have dared to touch the apple of God’s eye (cf. Exod. 22:21-24; Deut 32:10; Ps. 17:18). The psalmist is convinced that the oppression of the weak among God’s people is sufficient basis for God to appear and punish the evildoers.

The most distressing fact of all is that the wicked oppressors have gone so far as to impugn God’s character in order to excuse their evil deeds. They have attributed their prolonged success as sinners to God’s ignorance or indifference. “God does not see,” they claim, “and if He does, He must not care” (v. 7). Little wonder, then, that the psalmist appeals to God to act not only to defend His people, but also to vindicate His reputation.

Who are these wicked ones with whom the psalmist petitions God to deal? Are they the pagan unbelievers of other nations or are they the wicked unbelievers within Israel? I am inclined with others159 toward the view that the wicked described here are Israelites. In Psalm 50 the wicked are identified as God’s people (cf. vv. 4, 16-21). Many other Old Testament passages describe similar sins as the deeds of Israelites (cf. Isa. 1:23; Jer. 22:3; Ezek. 22:6-7; Amos 5:10-13; Zech. 7:8-12). In Psalm 94 the wicked speak of Yahweh as “the God of Jacob” (v. 7), and they are called the “senseless among the people” (v. 8). The arguments of verses 9-11 are more forceful to Israelites, not to pagans. Most likely, then, the wicked are the evildoers within the nation Israel.

The Psalmist Speaks to Sinners About God (94:8-11)

8 Pay heed, you senseless among the people; And when will you understand, stupid ones? 9 He who planted the ear, does He not hear? He who formed the eye, does He not see? 10 He who chastens the nations, will He not rebuke, Even He who teaches man knowledge? 11 The LORD knows the thoughts of man, That they are a mere breath. (NASB)

In verses 1-7 the psalmist spoke to God about sinners. Now in verses 8-11 he turns and speaks to sinners about God. The psalmist attacks the wicked at their most vulnerable point. It seems that the cruel oppressors knew they were doing wrong, but justified themselves by passing part of the blame to God. “Sure,” they seem to have said, “We’re sinning, but why hasn’t God done anything about it?” “God either does not know or He doesn’t care.” “If God isn’t concerned about our sin, why should we worry about it?”

Bluntly, the psalmist calls the logic of the wicked “stupid” and “senseless” (v. 8). These same terms are employed in Psalm 92:6 to describe the wicked. “Senseless” emphasizes the brutish, beastly nature of those who reason in such a way. “Stupid” stresses the moral depravity of such men. The use of these words should have shocked those who were thus addressed.

Two lines of argumentation are employed by the psalmist to show just how stupid the reasoning of the wicked is. Verse 9 argues on the basis of men’s belief in God as the Creator. How can the God who gives men ears to hear not be capable of hearing Himself? How is it possible that the God who gives men eyes to see is unable to see their sinful deeds? To think that God does not see or hear their evil deeds is to ignore the fact that God is the One who enables men to see and hear. How can God not possess those abilities which He gives to men?

Verse 10 is based upon Israel’s belief in God as the One who chastens the nations. Israel had witnessed God’s chastening hand on the Egyptians at the exodus. The Israelites expected God to chasten the nations, especially if they oppressed God’s people (cf. Num. 21:21-25). God drove out the Canaanites because of their sinful deeds and gave their land to the Israelites (Deut. (9:4-5). God also warned His people that He would discipline them, just as He had the Canaanites (Deut. 8:19-20). Therefore, the psalmist reasons, if God does chasten the nations, how can the wicked think He will not rebuke His own people? If I as a parent will trouble myself to correct a neighbor child for doing wrong, will I not much more certainly correct my own child when he sins? Surely then God not only knows what the wicked are doing, but He can be expected to act in discipline.

The wicked have given their appraisal of God in verse 7: He neither knows nor cares what they do. Now, in response to such foolishness, God gives His opinion of man’s reasoning: “Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are a mere breath” (v. 11). Such are the sinful thoughts of man. They are mere breath. Man’s foolish reasoning is only worthy of God’s disdain and ridicule.

Why would the psalmist trouble himself to respond to the wicked as he has done in verses 8-11? One possible reason is that he can hardly allow such stupid reasoning to pass without comment. The godly are obliged to show the folly of the excuses offered by sinful men. There may well be another more gracious reason for verses 8-11. Is it not possible that while the psalmist is appealing to God to come and pronounce judgment upon the wicked he is also appealing to the wicked to reconsider their sinful ways and repent? The argument of verses 8-11 certainly challenges the sinner to face up to the folly of his way, just as wisdom warns the foolish in the Book of Proverbs (cf. Prov. 1:20-33).

The Psalmist Speaks to the Righteous About God (94:12-15)

12 Blessed is the man whom Thou dost chasten, O LORD, And dost teach out of Thy law; 13 That Thou mayest grant him relief from the days of adversity, Until a pit is dug for the wicked. 14 For the LORD will not abandon His people, Nor will He forsake His inheritance. 15 For judgment will again be righteous; And all the upright in heart will follow it. (NASB)

We should remember that in the psalmist’s day the wicked were not just prospering; they were prevailing. They were not only getting away with evil, they were governing, promoting evil from the highest offices of the land (v. 20). The wicked were oppressing the weak and persecuting the righteous (cf. v. 21). While the wicked needed a word of correction, the righteous needed a word of comfort. How could God allow them to be mistreated for such a long period of time? Why was God allowing them to suffer, and when would relief come? Verses 12-15 address the righteous providing some answers to these questions.

The terms “chasten” and “teach” found in verse 10 are employed in verse 12 but with a different meaning. While God chastens and teaches the nations in His wrath, He lovingly chastens His own people as His sons (Deut. 8:1-5; Prov. 3:12; Heb. 12:6). The inference of our text is that God accomplishes this chastening by employing the oppression of the wicked to instruct the godly. Other passages reveal that suffering is instrumental in the process of learning God’s law:

So I shall have an answer for him who reproaches me, for I trust in Thy word (Ps. 119:42).

Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep Thy word (Ps. 119:67).

It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I may learn Thy statutes (Ps. 119:71).

I know, O Lord, that Thy judgments are righteous, and that in faithfulness Thou has afflicted me (Ps. 119:75).

Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, a cruel and wicked act, yet he was later able to comfort his brothers with these words: “Do not be afraid, for am I in God’s place? And as for you, you meant it for evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive” (Gen. 50:19b-20). Just as God allowed Joseph’s brothers to sin against him, for a good end unknown to them, so God also allows the wicked to promote His good purposes in the lives of His people. While not identical in thought, we read in Psalm 76:10: “For the wrath of man shall praise Thee.”

God chastens us (by means of wicked men) in order to teach us His law. One of the ways God’s law benefits us is by giving us “relief” in times of adversity: “Blessed is the man160 whom Thou dost chasten, O Lord, and dost teach out of Thy law; that Thou mayest grant him relief161 from the days of adversity, until a pit is dug for the wicked (vv. 12-13).

There is a sequence of events suggested in verses 12 and 13. God allows the wicked to prosper, which results in the chastening of the righteous. This chastening is a vital part of the teaching process, for in the midst of adversity we become much more attentive to God’s law. Learning God’s law gives the righteous “relief” or inner peace (cf. Ruth 3:18; Isa. 7:4; 30:15; 32:17) in the midst of adversity. Not only does God’s law enable us to find rest of soul in the days of adversity, it also assures us that in time to come (when a pit is dug for the wicked, v. 13) the wicked will receive their just “reward.” In this way the righteous find God faithful both to give peace in adversity and ultimately to give deliverance from adversity. God’s grace is sufficient to enable us to endure adversity as well as to escape it. The adversity we endure is the wrath of men. The adversity we escape, however, is the wrath of God on sinful men. Better to endure the former and to escape the latter.

There is a television commercial in which a mechanic says, “See me now or see me later.” The inference is that we will either pay for maintenance or for repairs, but sooner or later we will pay. There is a sense in which this is true of suffering. All men are required to suffer sooner or later. The righteous are privileged to suffer now so that they will not suffer later. The wicked may prosper now, but ultimately they will suffer the wrath of God for their sin. The point of the Book of Hebrews seems to be to encourage the saints to accept present suffering for righteousness’ sake so as to experience God’s eternal blessings. Moses is cited as one of the Old Testament examples of those who were willing to suffer now in order to experience blessing in the future:

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin; considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen (Heb. 11:24-27).

Likewise, the apostle Paul considered present suffering a small thing in light of the eternal blessings of God: “For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison” (2 Cor. 4:17). Suffering the wrath of wicked men for a time, the psalmist teaches, is really a blessed privilege (v. 12). God teaches us His law, which produces blessed inner peace. It promises us ultimate deliverance, contrary to the wicked who prosper momentarily but perish ultimately.

Verses 14 and 15 both begin with an explanatory “for.” The man whom God chastens is truly blessed (v. 12), for the righteous can be absolutely confident of the promises of verses 12 and 13. The promises state that we will be able both to endure present adversity and to escape God’s judgment on the wicked. Notably we can find consolation and assurance in the fact that God will never abandon His people, nor will He forsake His inheritance162 (v. 14). Those who are being oppressed by the wicked are God’s own possession, His people (cf. v. 5). In a very special way the righteous Israelite belongs to God. God would never consider forsaking those with whom He has entered into such an intimate relationship. God’s nature is such that we can be assured of a day when righteousness will reign and when all the righteous will joyfully follow in the way of the upright (v. 15).

The Psalmist Speaks to Himself About God (94:16-23)

16 Who will stand up for me against evildoers? Who will take his stand for me against those who do wickedness? 17 If the LORD had not been my help, My soul would soon have dwelt in the abode of silence. 18 If I should say, “My foot has slipped,” Thy lovingkindness, O LORD, will hold me up. 19 When my anxious thoughts multiply within me, Thy consolations delight my soul. 20 Can a throne of destruction be allied with Thee, One which devises mischief by decree? 21 They band themselves together against the life of the righteous, And condemn the innocent to death. 22 But the LORD has been my stronghold, And my God the rock of my refuge. 23 And He has brought back their wickedness upon them, And will destroy them in their evil; The LORD our God will destroy them. (NASB)

I have chosen to depart from the paragraph divisions of the NASB here for two reasons. First, the Hebrew text indicates that verse 16 begins the next section rather than concluding verses 12-15. Secondly, verse 16 seems to fit best into the context of the final section. Verses 12-15 speak of God’s relationship to the righteous, “His people” (v. 14). Verses 16-23 focus upon God’s faithfulness to the psalmist personally and individually. Notice the continual reference in verses 17-23 to “me” and “my.” Likewise, verse 16 is written from the perspective of the psalmist, not from the more general viewpoint of the righteous: “Who will stand up for me?” In this last section then the psalmist speaks to himself, reminding himself of God’s faithfulness in the past and assuring himself of God’s trustworthiness in the future.

Verse 16 fittingly introduces the conclusion to this psalm: “Who will stand up for me against evildoers? Who will take his stand for me against those who do wickedness?” Initially, I thought the psalmist was inviting others who were righteous to join him in resisting evildoers. I now understand him to be saying, “No one but God is able to stand up for me.” The psalmist was right to take this matter to God in verses 1-7, for only God can and will deal with the wicked. The matter is simply too great for anyone else.163

The psalmist asks, somewhat rhetorically, “Who will stand up for me? Who will take a stand for me against the wicked?” The two expressions “stand up” and “take a stand” both refer to a powerful, purposeful defense and even beyond this, an attack launched against the wicked. When God “stands” it will signal that He is no longer going to tolerate sin. He will take action against the wicked (cf. Num. 10:35; Isa. 28:21; 33:10). My children know that it takes a great deal to get me out of my easy chair to act in discipline, but once I stand it is the beginning of the end. The psalmist is suggesting that when God stands up, look out!

When one “takes a stand” he is ready and able to “stand fast” and to hold his position (cf. Deut. 7:24; 9:2; 11:25; Josh. 1:5). Also, to “take a stand” is to prepare for battle, to get ready to wage an attack (cf. 1 Sam. 17:16; Ps. 2:2; Jer. 46:4). God alone can and will “arise” and “take a stand” against the wicked.

Rather than to criticize others who have not come to his defense, the psalmist confesses that he, too, is unable to stand apart from divine enablement: “If the Lord had not been my help, my soul would soon have dwelt in the abode of silence. If I should say, ‘My foot has slipped,’ Thy lovingkindness, O Lord, will hold me up” (vv. 17-18).

The “abode of silence” (v. 17) is a poetic reference to death. The Old Testament saint viewed death as a state of silence in which the believer was no longer able to praise God (Ps. 115:17). Here in Psalm 94:17 the psalmist speaks of death as a state of dwelling in silence. Had God not come to his rescue, the psalmist confesses, he would have been put to death long ago by his enemies. A similar poetic allusion to the imminent danger of death is found in verse 18, where he speaks of his foot nearly slipping. As elsewhere (cf. Deut. 32:35; Ps. 38:16; 73:2), losing one’s footing is equivalent to perishing. Even if the psalmist thought his destruction was inevitable, God would be there to uphold him.

More often than not the possibility of our destruction is more a figment of our imagination than a fact rooted in reality. Living in days of danger tends to make us fearful of whether our anxieties are well founded. God’s faithfulness not only delivers us from real danger, His consolations deliver us from dread and anxiety (v. 19).164 God is more than a mighty warrior, who stations Himself before us in times of battle. He is also a mighty counselor, who comforts us in times of mental distress. Such consolation comes from two major sources: (1) the promises of God’s Word (the law, v. 12); and (2) the protection He has personally provided for us in times past (v. 17). In verses 20-23 the psalmist ponders these things so as to find comfort in a time when evil men seem to prevail.

Verses 20 and 21 provide consolation to the psalmist as he contemplates the character of God in contrast to the conduct of the wicked: “Can a throne of destruction be allied with Thee, one which devises mischief by decree? They band themselves together against the life of the righteous, and condemn the innocent to death.” The wicked thus described are not a small minority within the nation. Indeed, they seem to be those who are in control of the government. They devise mischief “by decree”; that is, they actually pass laws which permit them to sin, or worse yet, which promote sin. The power of government is no longer employed to punish evil-doers, but to promote wickedness. God’s delay might be interpreted as some kind of approval of the administration of the wicked, almost an alliance. Certainly that is what the wicked suggested (cf. v. 7). But as the psalmist considers both the wickedness of these evil men and the goodness of God, he concludes that God cannot and will not form any kind of alliance with evildoers. Because they legislate sin and they mobilize government to oppress the righteous, God must ultimately deal with them in judgment.

Verses 22 and 23 summarize the confidence which the psalmist has in God, which gives him peace in times of peril and assures him that he has been right in leaving the fate of the wicked with God: “But the Lord has been my stronghold, and my God the rock of my refuge. And He has brought back their wickedness upon them, and will destroy them in their evil; the Lord our God will destroy them.”

The freedom with which the Hebrew language allows the poet to utilize the past tense leaves some room for differences in interpretation and translation here,165 but the force of the argument is unaffected by these differences. God has been faithful in the past and has proven Himself to be the stronghold and the refuge of the psalmist (v. 22). On the basis of this confidence, he can leave the destiny of the wicked to God, knowing that their ultimate destruction is certain no matter how long the delay (v. 23).

Conclusion

The most impressive feature of this psalm is its breadth and its balance concerning the attitudes and actions of the righteous in response to the wicked. The psalmist recognizes that revenge is not our responsibility, but God’s. Repaying men for their evil deeds is God’s responsibility. We may appeal to Him to act, knowing that He is the “Judge of the earth” (v. 2), that He is fully aware of men’s deeds, and that He is concerned with the welfare of His people and the upholding of His reputation. Committing the destiny (or the destruction) of the wicked to God is not only the right thing to do, it relieves the righteous of feelings of bitterness and hostility which are self-destructive.

Committing the fate of wicked men to God does not mean that we are to be entirely passive concerning evil. Verses 8-11 instruct us that we should speak out against evil and that we should seek to show the wicked the folly of their thoughts and deeds. I personally believe that leaving the punishment of the wicked in God’s hands also frees the righteous to appeal to the wicked to repent of their evil and to turn to God in faith. Evangelism is promoted by the righteous, who commit vengeance to God.

Committing the wicked to God’s care also clears the air in our understanding of His purpose for our lives in the midst of the prosperity of the wicked. Verses 12-15 instruct us that the psalmist had a good grasp of God’s present purposes for the righteous. Sinful men are still under the controlling hand of the sovereign God, who uses them to accomplish His purposes in the lives of His people. In affliction, the righteous learn God’s law in a personal and practical way. God gives peace to endure affliction and He gives deliverance from His wrath to escape future adversity when the wicked are punished. The psalmist has a proper perspective so that he encourages the righteous to persevere in times of suffering.

Finally, the psalmist is able to apply what he knows about God’s plan for the wicked and the righteous to his own life. God’s character and His purposes, as revealed in His Word, assure the saint that God will continue to care for His own, just as He has done in the past. The righteous can turn to no one else. God alone is our refuge and our strength.

Let us seek to think and to act as the psalmist has, especially in times such as ours when the wicked not only prosper, but prevail and persecute the righteous. Let us commit their destiny and their destruction to God. Let us commit ourselves to His keeping and His purposes. Let us draw strength from His Word and from His faithfulness in our lives. Furthermore, let us warn the wicked of the folly of their ways, seeking to turn them to God while there is yet time. God’s delay in dealing with the wicked is not only to accomplish His purposes in our lives (vv. 12-15) and to dig a pit for their destruction (v. 13), but also to give them time to repent (2 Pet. 3:9).

157 It should be noted that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, does attribute this psalm to David, calling it “A Psalm of David, for the fourth day of the week,” but most scholars are inclined to question the accuracy of this superscription since it is not found in the Hebrew text.

158 God is a “God of vengeance,” cf. Ps. 9:12; Isa. 35:4; Jer. 51:56; Nah. 1:2. Nevertheless, we should not think of this dimension of His character as unworthy of Him. Leupold warns, “… this expression is not the outgrowth of an unworthy conception of God but rather an appeal to a function that He will from time to time exercise.… there are times when it must be exercised, and when such times come, the issue rests safely in the hands of Him who knows how to administer this difficult function.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1969), p. 668.

159 “The miscreants involved do not appear to be heathen oppressors who have been afflicting a victimized people, but rather men from within Israel as many writers are now beginning to maintain in conformity especially with v. 8, as also in his day Luther strongly insisted: ‘In my opinion this psalm does not lament about the heathen but about the kings, princes, priests, and prophets and calls them fools among the people.’” Leupold, p. 668.

160 Interestingly, the Hebrew word rendered “man” here is not the usual term, but rather the term geber, which conveys the nuance of strength. The geber is a strong man (cf. Ps. 34:8; 40:4; 127:5; 128:4). The man who is made strong is the one who has been oppressed by the wicked but has been made strong by the Word of God.

162 The term “inheritance” is frequently used in the Old Testament for the land of Canaan which God has promised to give His people as an inheritance. But the same term is also used of Israel as God’s “inheritance,” stressing God’s vested interest in His people, Israel (cf. Deut. 4:20; 9:26,29; 1 Kings 8:51; Ps. 28:9; 33:12; 74:2; 106:5,40; Isa. 19:25; 47:6; Jer. 12:7-9; Mic. 7:14). Here in Psalm 94:5, 14 it is intended to emphasize God’s great concern for His people, which inclines Him to act on their behalf.

163 Kirkpatrick comments, “It is not a question of doubt or unbelief, but an emphatic form of assertion that Israel has no helper but Jehovah.” A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1982), p. 570.

164 The “anxious thoughts” of which the psalmist speaks are literally “divided or branching thoughts” (Perowne, II, p. 188). Kirkpatrick (p. 570) calls them, “… distracting thought which divide and perplex the mind.” This seems to be consistent with the faithless doubts of which James speaks (James 1:5-8); cf. also Ps. 139:23 and Job 4:13.

165 “The preterites here express, not so much what has already taken place, as the confidence of faith which looks upon that which shall be as if already accomplished.” Perowne, II, p. 189.

12. Psalm 95: A Warning About Worship

Introduction

Not all that many years ago, men believed that the earth was the center of the universe. All of the planets were thought to be in orbit about the earth. Modern astronomy has shown this to be in error. This historical view of the universe tells us a great deal about the mentality of mankind. Man wants to believe that everything revolves around himself. We want to be at the center of what is happening.

While we have come to grips with the fact that the sun is the center of our solar system, some Christians still seem to think that in the spiritual realm man is central. We persist in emphasizing what God can do for men, rather than dwelling on man’s duty toward God. We become angry with God or confused when adversity disrupts our lives. It is little wonder that Christians have so much difficulty worshipping God. Worship is God-centered, not man-centered. Worship focuses on God and His greatness, not on man.

Psalm 95 serves as the introduction to a series of Psalms devoted to the theme of worship and praise (Pss. 95–100).166 Psalm 95 has long been regarded as an invitation to worship. It has been a vital part of liturgies from ancient times.167 This psalm helps the believer to reorient his thinking and practice concerning the vital matter of worship. It turns our attention and affection toward God. When our role in worship is addressed, the focus is on obedience and reverence.

In the Hebrew text the psalm lacks a superscription. Thus we are uninformed with respect to the author of the psalm and its historical setting. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) names David as the author, but this addition is not taken seriously, even considering the statement in Hebrews 4:7.168

Some scholars have noted the dramatic change in mood from the first half of the psalm to the second and have concluded that this must originally have been two psalms. This view has been ably refuted, for obvious reasons.169 The sudden change in mood is required not only by the nature of worship, but also by the nature of man as we shall shortly attempt to demonstrate. Let us now look to the message of this psalm in order to become better worshippers, as well as to avoid the unpleasant consequences against which the latter part of this psalm warns.

1 O come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; Let us shout joyfully to the rock of our salvation. 2 Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving; Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms. 3 For the LORD is a great God, And a great King above all gods, 4 In whose hand are the depths of the earth; The peaks of the mountains are His also. 5 The sea is His, for it was He who made it; And His hands formed the dry land. (NASB)

In verses 1-5 we have the psalmist’s first call to worship. Verses 1 and 2 are an exhortation to rejoice, and verses 3-5 provide us with a good reason for rejoicing. We will attempt to capture the essence of these verses by pointing out several characteristics of worship they encourage.

First, the worship that is encouraged is collective in that it is congregational. Four times in verses 1 and 2 we read, “Let us …” While worship may be done privately, it is not viewed as such here. Those who claim to be able to worship God just as easily from a secluded spot on the lake (with a fishing pole in hand) are hard pressed to explain how they can worship in the corporate manner described in Psalm 92. Here and elsewhere in the Scriptures, worship is described as congregational, not merely individual.

Second, the worship promoted here is vocal. Too often we think of worship not only as private, but as silent. We are told to sing a song “worshipfully” and we know that this means we are to sing slowly and quietly. No doubt this stems from such scriptural statements as, “Be still and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10, AV). Other versions, such as the NASB (“Cease striving”; margin, “Let go, relax”), indicate that “being still” is not commanded in the context of public worship, but refers to the ceasing from strife, addressed more to an unbelieving world than to believers.171 The words employed in verses 1 and 2 all refer to a vocal, public praise of God.

Third, the terms used in the first two verses speak of vocal praise that is vibrant and vigorous. It is a joyful, grateful praise.172 It is not a subdued, somber praise, but an exuberant expression of worship173 The terms employed here describe activity which seems more appropriate in the football stadium than in the church “sanctuary.” The expression “sing for joy” in verse 1 is more properly “shout for joy.”174 It conveys intense feeling, most often joyful, but occasionally that of sorrow (Lam. 2:19).

The expression “shout joyfully” (NASB) in the second line of verse 1 comes from a Hebrew word meaning “to raise a shout.” This was done in anticipation of a battle or a triumph (Josh. 6:10,16,20; 1 Sam. 4:5; 17:20,52). It was done at the coronation of Saul (1 Sam. 10:24). This term is repeated in the second verse of our psalm and again rendered “shout joyfully” (NASB).

Some Christians seem to think that worship cannot and should not be exuberant or noisy. They are often critical of others whose worship is too animated and enthusiastic. While there are extremes, few in our circles come close to being too enthusiastic. Our tendency is to react against such worship, even as Michal disdained David’s enthusiasm before the ark of God, an attitude for which she was divinely disciplined (2 Sam. 6:12-23).

Finally, the joyful, exuberant praise of verses 1 and 2 is God-centered. There is a preoccupation with God, not with excitement, enthusiasm or expression. The congregation is not encouraged to “get high” (or, in the words of one contemporary song, “get all excited”) with some kind of self-energized enthusiasm. The source of their joy and the recipient of their praise was to be their God. Worship that is biblical is that praise and adoration which has God as its source and its subject. As the sun is the center of our solar system, so God is to be at the center of our adoration and praise.

While our worship should be fervent, it must also be founded on truth. In verses 3-4 the sovereignty of God is given as a basis for our worship. Verse 3 expresses God’s sovereignty in general terms: God is great, indeed He is above all gods. This statement does not in any way imply that the psalmist believed there were other gods. He means that Israel’s God is greater than the false “gods” which the heathen worship. Thus, after God’s defeat of the “no-gods” of Egypt at the exodus, we find Israel singing: “Who is like Thee among the gods, O Lord? Who is like Thee, majestic in holiness, awesome in praises, working wonders?” (Exod. 15:11)

Verses 4 and 5 depict God’s sovereignty more specifically. God is sovereign over His creation. He is the Creator of all the earth. He is the owner of all His creation. He is the controller of all that He has created and possesses. What God made is His and what is His, He controls. The expressions “depths” and “peaks” (v. 4), and “sea” and “dry land” (v. 5), emphasize the totality of His creation and control of the earth. He made it all. He is sovereign over all. The world is not only the work of His hands, it is in His hands now. In the words of one song: “He’s got the whole world in His hands.”175

A Call to Reverence (95:6-7b)

6 Come, let us worship and bow down; Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker. 7 For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of His hand. … (NASB)

The second call to worship is contained in verse 6, and its basis is given in verse 7. Notice especially the change of tone, from exuberant, enthusiastic praise to awe-inspired prostration. The worshipper is seen standing in God’s presence, shouting forth praise in verses 1 and 2. Now, in verse 6 the worshipper falls on his face before God in humbled silence.

The key word that characterizes the first five verses is praise, while the theme of verses 6 and 7 is summarized by prostration. These words, incidentally, are the basic nuance of the original terms for worship, both in Hebrew and Greek.176 Worship, then, involves both animated praise and speechless prostration.

The basis for this prostration is introduced in verse 6 and explained in verse 7. God is “our Maker.” Not only is God the Creator of the heavens and the earth (vv. 4-5), He is also man’s Creator. I believe by this the psalmist reminds Israel that God is her Maker.177 This is clearly stated elsewhere: “Thus says the Lord who made you and formed you from the womb, who will help you, ‘Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; and you Jeshurun whom I have chosen’“ (Isa. 44:2; cf. Deut. 32:6,15,18; Isa. 51:13; 54:5; Pss. 100:3; 149:2).

Just as God controls the earth which He created (vv. 4-5), so He also Shepherds His people, which He brought into existence as her Maker. God is not just the God of creation, but our God (v. 7a). He stands in intimate relationship with His people, just as a shepherd does to his flock (Ps. 74:1; cf. John 10). As the creation is handmade and hand-held,178 so are God’s people the “sheep of His hand” (v. 7b).179

A Warning From Massah and Meribah (95:7c-11)

7c Today, if you would hear His voice, 8 Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness; 9 “When your fathers tested Me, They tried Me, though they had seen My work. 10 For forty years I loathed that generation, And said they are a people who err in their heart, And they do not know My ways. 11 Therefore I swore in My anger, Truly they shall not enter into My rest.” (NASB)

I understand the last line of verse 7 as a transition. On the one hand, it serves to conclude verses 1-7. In effect, we could punctuate it this way: “For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of His hand, today, if you would hear his voice.” Punctuated in this way, we would find an Old Testament parallel to our Lord’s words in John’s gospel: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27). The Lord is our Shepherd when we obey His command to worship and to praise Him. We prove ourselves to be one of the sheep of His pasture as we follow Him as our Shepherd.

On the other hand this final line of verse 7 also serves as an introduction to the following verses. It can be rendered either as a wish, “Oh that you would obey ...” (margin, NASB), or as a condition, “Today; if you would hear His voice, ...” (NASB, text). When the writer to the Hebrews cites this passage (Heb. 3:7-11) he uses this latter translation. Viewed as a transitional statement, this line can be understood both as a conclusion and as an introduction.

Two general observations should be made before we begin to study verses 8-11 in greater detail. First, note that there is a dramatic change of mood. From the jubilant praise of verses 1 and 2 we have come to a solemn warning in verses 8-11. This passage cannot be taken lightly.

Notice next that in verse 8 there is a change of speaker. In the first seven verses the psalmist has spoken. Now, God Himself speaks to the psalmist’s generation. This makes the message of warning even more awesome. In Psalm 90:14-16 the security of the individual who takes refuge in God is guaranteed by God Himself. Now in Psalm 95:8-11 God personally warns men of the danger of hardening their hearts, as did those in the day of Moses.

The danger about which God warns Israel is that of hardening their hearts (v. 8). To more fully define just what this means God illustrates this evil from the history of Israel. He refers to the conduct of their forefathers who escaped from Egypt but who failed to possess the land of Canaan. Massah and Meribah are not just geographical names, but names which designate two evils, both of which characterized the conduct of God’s people who had hardened hearts. Massah, as the marginal note in some of your Bibles indicates, is a name derived from the Hebrew word for test. Meribah is derived from the Hebrew word for strife or contention. Let us refresh our memories by turning back in our Bibles to two passages which describe two events designated by these terms Massah and Meribah.

The first instance of Massah and Meribah is described in Exodus 17:1-7. God had recently accomplished the release of His people from Egyptian bondage by means of ten plagues and the parting of the Red Sea (Exod. 5–14). In Exodus 15 the people sang a song of praise to God for His redemption (15:1-21). When the Israelites thirsted and began to grumble at Marah, God provided a means of sweetening the water (Exod. 15:22-25). Shortly afterwards when they grumbled for lack of food, God gave them both manna and meat (Exod. 16).

In chapter 17 the nation camped at Rephidim, where there was no water (17:1). The people began to quarrel with Moses (vv. 2,7). Moses then tried to point out to the people that their grumbling was really against God, whom they were testing, “Is the Lord among us or not?” (v. 7). The people were so angry they were about to stone Moses (v. 4). In response to Moses’ plea for help, God instructed him to strike the rock at Horeb with his rod. When Moses did so, water gushed from the rock and the people were able to drink (vv. 5-6). The place was then named Massah and Meribah (v. 7). These names which we have said mean “testing” and “contention” are particularly appropriate since we find the verbs “to test” and “to quarrel” twice in this passage (vv. 2,7).

The second account is found in Numbers 20:1-13. Here the term Massah is not used, only the word Meribah (20:13). The event is quite similar to that described in Exodus 17, so much so that some liberal scholars have thought the two passages to be differing accounts of the same incident. There was no water (v. 2). The people grumbled and complained against Moses and Aaron (vv. 2-5). They accused Moses of leading Israel from Egypt only to let them perish (v. 4). They complained that the place of their encampment was wretched (literally, “evil,” v. 5). Clearly implied is the people’s belief that Egypt was a far better place than the wilderness.

As Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before God, His glory appeared to them (v. 6). He instructed Moses to take his rod and to speak to (not strike) the rock180 before the congregation. In anger, Moses scolded the people and twice struck the rock. While water came forth for the people to drink, Moses and Aaron were indicted by God for their unbelief and their lack of reverence before the people. As a result, they were not permitted to lead the Israelites into Canaan (v. 12).

Although there are many similarities between these two accounts, there are also some significant differences. The first incident occurred at Rephidim, in the wilderness of Sin (Exod. 17:1); the second happened at Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin (not Sin, Num. 20:1). The first event involved the generation which had just passed through the Red Sea (Exod. 14). The second event involved the next generation, nearly 40 years later, who were about to enter the promised land (note the death of Miriam in Num. 20:1, also Num. 21ff.). Furthermore, in the first account it was the people who sinned, while in the second it was their leaders, Moses and Aaron (Num. 20:9-12).

These two accounts, when viewed in the light of their similarities and differences, lead us to several important conclusions. First, the two events, removed in time, and involving, by and large, different people, reveal a problem common to men of every generation. Both before and after the first incident at Rephidim, the same basic problems are exposed. This leads to the conclusion that in any age God’s people suffer from the same problems. We should also realize that both leaders and followers are plagued with the same problems and suffer the same consequences.

Massah and Meribah are not just historical incidents, they are manifestations of a persistent problem. They reveal attitudes and actions (testing and contending) which result in the loss of certain blessings. Massah and Meribah are both typical and the “tip of the iceberg.” In Numbers Moses speaks of the sins of the Israelites as beginning in Egypt (“from Egypt even until now,” 14:19) and frequently recurring (“these ten times,” 14:22). Again in the ninth chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses stresses the persistence of Israel’s sin:

“Again at Taberah and at Massah and at Kibroth-hatta-avah you provoked the Lord to wrath. And when the Lord sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, ‘Go up and possess the land which I have given you,’ then you rebelled against the command of the Lord your God; you neither believed Him nor listened to His voice. You have been rebellious against the Lord from the day I knew you” (Deut 9:22-24).

Asaph also wrote: “How often they rebelled against Him in the wilderness, and grieved Him in the desert! Again and again they tempted God, and pained the Holy One of Israel” (Ps. 78: 40-41).

Massah and Meribah are historical events which expose a deep-seated and recurring tendency to become hardened in heart. That is why the psalmist wrote, “Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as in the day of Massah in the wilderness” (Ps. 95:8). The word “as” indicates that it is a Massah-like attitude of heart which God despises. Massah and Meribah reveal an attitude and its resulting actions which God loathes and which result in a failure to experience the promised blessings of God (Ps. 95:11). Kadesh, the incident which was, so to speak, the straw that broke the camel’s back, is not specifically referred to in Psalm 95, although the penalty described in verse 17 was the result of Israel’s failure to take possession of the land (Num. 13–14). The psalmist seems to see Kadesh-Barnea as a piece of the same cloth, another example of the Massah and Meribah mentality.

Just what are the problems which Massah and Meribah reveal? Perhaps these can best be seen in contrast to the purposes of God as outlined in Deuteronomy 8. Here, Moses explained what God was doing in the lives of His people in the wilderness. An understanding of God’s purposes exposes Israel’s problems as typified at Massah and Meribah. Let us briefly review God’s purposes for the wilderness experience of His people.

(1) God led Israel into the wilderness and into adversity. Moses explained that God not only led Israel into the wilderness, but that He purposely created adverse circumstances.

“And you shall remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. And He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord” (Deut. 8:2-3).

Israel saw their sufferings as sufficient grounds for questioning both God’s presence and His power. They challenged, “Is the Lord among us or not?” (Exod. 17:7). Adversity suggested God’s absence, but Moses taught otherwise.

(2) God led Israel into adversity in order to humble them. The purpose of the hardship God brought upon His people was to humble them, teaching them to depend on Him (Deut. 8:3). Israel, rather than becoming humble, became hard in heart (Ps. 95:8). Rather than depending on God they became independent, even rebellious.

(3) God led Israel into adversity to teach them obedience. Even more important than satisfying their physical needs, God’s people needed to learn the importance of obedience to His word (Deut. 8:3). Instead of believing God’s promises and obeying His commands, they refused to believe and they disobeyed His word. Rather than follow Moses, they were about to stone him (Exod. 17:4), and even proposed that another leader be appointed who would lead them back to Egypt (Num. 14:4).

(4) God let Israel hunger and thirst in order to provide for their needs. Not only did God say that He let Israel hunger and thirst, He also reminded them that in every hour of need He provided for them, in spite of their grumbling and disobedience (Deut 8:3). Never did God fail to provide for His people. He purposed times of need so that He could prove Himself to be faithful to His promises. Israel interpreted every crisis as the occasion for their death, not their deliverance. “But the people thirsted there for water; and they grumbled against Moses and said, ‘Why, now, have you brought us up from Egypt, to kill us and our children and our livestock with thirst?’” (Exod. 17:3).

(5) God brought unpleasant circumstances into the lives of His people in order to do them good. God’s purposes for His people were always for their best interest. “In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end” (Deut. 8:16). Israel saw every instance of adversity as evil. They referred to Kadesh as this “wretched” (lit. evil) place (Num. 20:5). God said every calamity was an occasion for good.

(6) God led Israel into adversity to test them (cf. Exod. 15:25; 16:4; Deut. 8:2). The best way to test either people or things is by putting them through the most adverse conditions. This is true of cars, electronic equipment, and people. The real question was not, “Can God provide for His own?”, but “Will God’s people trust Him and obey His word?” Instead of seeing their circumstances as a test of their character, Israel viewed adversity a test of God’s presence and power. They tested Him, thereby sinning (Deut. 6:16; cf. Psalm 95:9).181 As a result of Israel’s refusal to trust and obey, they failed to experience the blessings which God had promised, “His rest.”182

Conclusion

We dare not take the message of this psalm lightly, because the New Testament makes it clear that the warning of this text applies as much to men and women of our time as it did in ages past. In 1 Corinthians 10 Paul speaks of the sins of Israel in the wilderness (vv. 1-10) and tells us that these have instructional value for us (vv. 6, 11-12). No trial is unique, but is common to mankind (v. 13). We are therefore warned against committing the very same sins as Israel practiced in the wilderness (“do not … as some of them did,” vv. 7,8,9,10).

Second, the writer to the Hebrews takes up the warning of Psalm 95:7-11 in chapters 3 and 4 of his epistle, showing that the “rest” of Psalm 95:11 is still future and the warning of verses 7c-11 is still in effect (“today,” Heb. 4:7-11).

What, then, is the message of this psalm, both to its original audience and to us? Positively, it is that we should worship God as a congregation, both by our rejoicing (vv. 1-2) and by our reverence (v. 6). Our worship is to be based both on God’s sovereignty as our Creator (vv. 3-5) and His sufficiency as our Shepherd (vv. 6-7).

Verses 7c-11 remind us that we must also worship God by our obedience. It is not just the repetition of rituals, not just the shouting of praises or the acts of reverence, but our persistent trust and obedience which is evidence of our true worship. If we would worship God as our Shepherd then surely we must follow Him as the sheep of His pasture. At Massah and Meribah the Israelites renounced not only Moses, but God as their Leader. They refused to follow. Worship without obedience is worthless to God. Indeed, it is loathsome (Ps. 95:10; cf. also Rev. 3:15-16).

Let us take very careful note of the relationship between the exhortation to worship God in verses 1-7 and the warning of verses 8-11. The warning is basically that we dare not fail to worship. In other words, failure to worship is one of the principal causes of a hardened heart. When we fail to worship, the hardening of our hearts begins, which is repulsive to God and is destructive to us.

In his stinging words to those who rejected Christ, Stephen showed those who stoned him that defective worship was at the heart of Israel’s disobedience and the grounds for divine discipline:

“This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you. And our fathers were unwilling to be obedient to him, but repudiated him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt, … But God turned away and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, ‘It was not to Me that you offered victims and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, was it, O house of Israel? You also took along the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rompha, the images which you made to worship them. I also will remove you beyond Babylon’” (Acts 7:38-39, 42-43).

Those forty loathsome years of Israel’s testing and disobedience were years typified by the events at Massah and Meribah. During that time Israel did not worship God who made and shepherded them with His hands (Ps. 95:4,5,7). Rather, they worshipped the gods of Egypt, which they made with their hands (Acts 7:41-43; cf. Jer. 1:16).

Psalm 95 teaches us that worship is not incidental; it is fundamental. It is not peripheral, but primary. We should worship God because He is worthy of it. We should worship God because He desires it (John 4:23-24). We should worship because God commands it (Ps. 95:1-7). We should worship God because to fail to worship hardens our hearts, leads to dissatisfaction and disobedience and ultimately to discipline.

Notice also that worship is not only to be primary, it is to be persistent. Every day is “today” (Ps. 95:7; cf. Heb. 3:13; 4:7). It is not enough to initially choose to trust in God and to follow Him. It is not enough to see God’s power or to hear His promises. We must persist in worshipping, in trusting and in obeying Him. Every day is “today.” We cannot rest on the past, but we must continue in that which God has begun. It is not enough to hear. Those who benefit from God’s promises persist and persevere in His word:

Therefore, let us fear lest, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard (Heb. 4:1-2).

It is my prayer, my friend, that you have already come to trust in Christ as God’s provision for your salvation. If not, I urge you to acknowledge your sin and to accept Christ’s sacrificial death as God’s provision for your salvation. If you have already done this, I urge you to persevere in your faith. In keeping with the words of this psalm I urge you to worship God as though your well-being depended upon it, because it does.

166 “There can be no question the Psalms 95-100 have a common theme in that they begin with a summons to sing praises unto the Lord though each has its distinctive note of praise. This psalm may be regarded as striking the keynote.” H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1979), p. 675.

167 “In appointing this Psalm, sometimes called the ‘Invitatory Psalm,’ for daily use as an introduction to the Psalms for the day, the English Church follows a primitive and general usage. ‘Before the beginning of their prayers,’ writes Athanasius of the practice of the Church of Constantinople, ‘Christians invite and exhort one another in the words of this Psalm.’ In the Western Church the whole Psalm appears to have been generally used. In the Eastern Church an invitatory founded on it is used at the commencement of service.” A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1982), p. 572.

168 “The LXX ascribes the psalm to David, but here it outruns the Hebrew text, which leaves it anonymous like its immediate companions. Hebrews 4:7 quotes it as the word of God ‘in David’ (not ‘through David’, which is RSV’s interpretation), but this need mean no more than ‘in the Psalter’.” Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150 (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975), pp. 343-344. Although the citation of Psalm 95 in Hebrews, ‘in David’ (Heb. 4:7), may merely be a reference to the Psalter, one cannot emphatically deny that David penned this hymn.

169 Kirkpatrick quickly brushes aside this view: “Some critics hold that this Psalm, like Ps. lxxxi, with which it has much in common, is a combination of two separate fragments; but in neither case is such a hypothesis necessary.” Kirkpatrick, p. 572.

170 I have chosen the title employed by Kidner for this section. As usual, Kidner concisely captures the essence of this psalm with these titles: “Rejoicing,” vv. 1-5; “Reverence,” vv. 6-7b; “Response,” vv. 7c-11. Kidner, pp. 344-345.

172 It is worth underscoring a comment by Derek Kidner which reminds us that while joy and gratitude are one occasion for worship, there are others as well: “To come singing into God’s presence is not the only way—cf. the ‘silence’ of 62:1; 65:1; or the tears of 56:8—but it is the way that best expresses love.” Kidner, p. 344.

173 “The verbs that are employed urge men to use more than tame terms and methods of praise. The familiar, ‘O come, let us sing,’ is not forceful enough. The verb that is used involves the idea of a ringing cry. The second verb suggests loud shouts. Tepid praise defeats its own purpose. In the Old Testament Temple worship may often have been characterized by a vigor and forcefulness that we are strangers to. The Oriental nature is more inclined toward a certain demonstrativeness than we are.” Leupold, p. 676.

174 The primary nuance of the word ranan is to “cry out” or to “give a ringing cry” (BDB). It may refer to jubilant singing, but not necessarily so, in fact, not frequently so. William White writes: “In Ps the root is developed to its fullest. Ranan appears in parallel poetry with nearly every term for ‘joy,’ ‘rejoicing’ and ‘praise’ but not clearly in any strict grammatical relationships. … The jubilation which is the main thrust of the root is elsewhere also in a context of music (II Chr 20:22, cf. v. 21), and singing may well be indicated. In many cases the jubilation could equally well be expressed in shouting or song—either would suit the context. The KJV translates by ‘sing’ half the time. In any case, Israel’s song would have been somewhat different from ours and perhaps more similar to jubilant shouting.” William White, “Ranan,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), II, p. 851.

175 Perhaps I should pause for a moment here to address the creation theme in the light of the current controversy concerning evolution. There are several factors involved here. The first is how literally we are to take the creation account of the first two chapters of Genesis. Any creation account which does not view Adam and Eve as actual, historical persons (the first ones!), contradicts both our Lord and Paul (cf. Matt. 19:4-6; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22,45) and strikes at the heart of man’s depravity which commenced at the fall.

Second, the creation of the world is a biblical truth which must be believed by faith (Heb. 11:3). In man’s fallen state he is much more disposed to worship the creation rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:18-23). To refuse to believe that God created the world is to fail in faith. Any issue that is a faith issue is a vital one.

Third, any handling of the creation account which fails to regard God as the sovereign Creator, who was intimately involved in creation (not just passively), who personally possesses it, and who is actively in control of it (e.g. Col. 1:15-17), undercuts the basis for worship which underlies not only this Psalm (95:3-5), but many other passages as well. God’s creation of the world is one of the dominant themes of Scripture (cf. Exod. 20:11; Pss. 102:25; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; Neh. 9:6; Acts 14:15; Rev. 4:11; 14:7).

A faulty view of creation undercuts our view of Scripture, our faith, and our worship. Let us carefully consider creation in the light of its crucial role.

176 Kidner remarks: “Each of the three main verbs of verse 6 is concerned with getting low before God, since the standard word for worship in Scripture means to prostrate oneself: cf., e.g., Abraham in Genesis 18:2. … A public act of homage is urged on us here as part of the service we owe to God, accepting our own place and acknowledging His.” Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150, p. 345.

179 I must admit to being puzzled by what form our worship is to take in the light of its basis. The exuberant praise of verses 1 and 2 is based upon God’s sovereignty as the Creator. The prostrate praise of verse 6 is based upon God’s creation of Israel and His care of her as her Shepherd. Why is it that the most enthusiastic worship of verses 1 and 2 is not based upon the most intimate relationship of verse 7? The greater the intimacy with God, the greater man’s reverence. Apparently familiarity does not breed contempt. This seems to have been the case with the disciples of our Lord: the more they came to know Him, the greater their love and their awe (cf. Mark 4:41; Luke 5:8-9). Knowing God is the means to fearing Him. Experiencing God’s caring hand in our lives should induce us to greater submission and reverence. Those who have little reverence for God may also have little intimacy with Him.

180 It should be noted that the Hebrew word for “rock” in Exodus 17:6 is not the same as that employed in Numbers 20:8-11.

181 It is a worthwhile study to compare the failure of Adam in his test in the garden which also involved physical denial (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:1-24) and the failure of Israel in the wilderness. Even more enlightening is to contrast the way our Lord successfully resisted Satan’s temptations in the wilderness. It is very evident that our Lord was, in a sense, reliving the wilderness wanderings of Israel, but victoriously. Both the circumstances and our Lord’s biblical responses demonstrate the parallelism which Matthew and Luke intend for us to understand. Since our Lord endured the tests which Israel failed, He alone is qualified to accomplish the work of redemption as the sinless Lamb of God who died in the place of the sinner.

182 The concept of “rest” is both complex and controversial. While it included entrance into the promised land, it was not fully realized, even when the nation did possess Canaan. The writer to the Hebrews emphasized this, noting that the psalmist would not be speaking of the promised rest as yet future if the promise of rest were already realized (cf. Heb. 4:8-9). We dare not equate the promised “rest” with salvation either, for let us recall that neither Moses nor Aaron entered Canaan. Paul says of those who fell in the wilderness that with “most of them God was not well pleased” (1 Cor. 10:5). While I personally need to study this subject much more, I am inclined to agree with my friend and collegue, Craig Nelson, who has suggested that the promised “rest” has to do with reigning with Messiah in His kingdom. Rest therefore has more to do with rewards than with salvation.

13. Psalm 109: A Prayer for the Punishment of the Wicked

Introduction

A very difficult text from Judges 19 which I preached several years ago describes the gruesome account of the attempted homosexual rape of a Levite, the brutal rape of his concubine, and the dismembering of her body into twelve pieces, which were sent to the twelve tribes of Israel by her husband. Several who were asked to read this scripture passage in our teaching hour declined. The one who did consent asked to pray before the text was read rather than afterward as was our custom!

Psalm 109 is a similarly unpleasant passage for many. If classified as movies are today, it would hardly receive a “G” rating. Some psalms are soothing, such as Psalm 23. Others like Psalm 91 are comforting. There are soul-stirring psalms which inspire us to worship and praise such as Psalm 103. Psalm 109 is very troubling to most because it is perhaps the strongest imprecatory183 psalm in the psalter. David, the author of the psalm as indicated in the superscription, calls upon God to destroy his enemies in the most horrible ways. According to Perowne, there are no less than 30 anathemas pronounced upon David’s enemies in this one psalm.184 David not only seeks the punishment of his enemy but also the painful consequences brought on his family: “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children wander about and beg; and let them seek sustenance far from their ruined homes” (vv. 9-10).

The problem we face in Psalm 109 is not restricted to this psalm, however. Other Psalms contain similar prayers for the punishment of evildoers: “Do Thou add iniquity to their iniquity, and may they not come into Thy righteousness. May they be blotted out of the book of life, and may they not be recorded with the righteous” (Ps. 69:27-28).

To some the beauty of Psalm 139 is shattered by these words:

O that Thou wouldst slay the wicked, O God; depart from me, therefore, men of bloodshed. For they speak against Thee wickedly, and Thine enemies take Thy name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; they have become my enemies (Ps. 139:19-22).

In Psalm 137 we find a cry of vengeance against the Babylonians:

Remember, O Lord, against the sons of Edom the day of Jerusalem, who said, “Raze it, raze it, to its very foundation.” O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, how blessed will be the one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us. How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock (Ps. 137:7-9).

The problem we face in Psalm 109 is one that is far broader than just one passage, or even one book of the Bible. Prayers of imprecation for the destruction of the wicked are to be found throughout the entire Word of God. Moses (the “meekest man on the face of the earth,” Num. 12:3) prayed, “Rise up, O Lord! And let Thine enemies be scattered, and let those who hate Thee flee before Thee” (Num. 10:35).

The prophet Jeremiah spoke stinging words of imprecation which parallel the prayers of David and others in the psalms:

Do give heed to me, O Lord, and listen to what my opponents are saying! Should good be repaid with evil? For they have dug a pit for me. Remember how I stood before Thee to speak good on their behalf, so as to turn away Thy wrath from them. Therefore, give their children over to famine, and deliver them up to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless and widowed. Let their men also be smitten to death, their young men struck down by the sword in battle. May an outcry be heard from their houses, when Thou suddenly bringest raiders upon them; for they have dug a pit to capture me and hidden snares for my feet. Yet Thou, O Lord, knowest all their deadly designs against me; do not forgive their iniquity or blot out their sin from Thy sight. But may they be overthrown before Thee; deal with them in the time of Thine anger! (Jer. 18:19-23; cf. also 11:18ff.; 15:15ff.; 20:11ff.).

There are numerous imprecations in the New Testament also, such as that of the saints who were slain for their righteousness:

And when He broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” (Rev. 6:9-10).

Imprecations such as those found in Psalm 109 have caused some Christians to question the value of the imprecatory prayers of the Bible for New Testament believers:

It is surely a debatable question as to whether the church should retain the whole Psalter in its worship, including these troublesome passages, or whether the Psalter should be censored at those points which seem to be inconsistent with God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. It would be interesting to check the responsive readings included in modern hymnals or books of worship, to see the degree to which the Psalms have been edited for Christian worship.185

No matter how perplexing the problem of imprecatory psalms may be, we cannot easily dismiss them. Imprecations, as we shall later point out, are also to be found in the New Testament. We know also that “all Scripture is profitable …” (2 Tim. 3:16) and therefore these prayers have a lesson for us to learn. In addition we must remember that all the psalms were recorded and preserved for public worship. The imprecatory psalms were not merely the passionate pleas of one man (spiritually or carnally motivated), but were rather a pattern for the worship of Israel. Can you imagine coming together to worship and singing a psalm like Psalm 109? Because ancient Israel did so, we must look very carefully at this passage to learn its message to us.

This lesson is intended to accomplish two purposes. We will seek to understand the message of Psalm 109, both as it related to the saints of old and as it applies to men today. In addition this psalm will be used to address the broader subject of imprecatory prayers. We will strive to understand the purpose of such prayers, and the principles which underly them, that apply equally to the saints today. Because of this two-fold purpose, our exposition of Psalm 109 will be more general to allow space for addressing the broader issues involved. Let us look first to the God to whom these prayers were addressed and His Spirit who inspired them, and then to the text itself for His message to us. May we not quickly disregard the stern warning of this psalm.

David’s Indictment of His Enemies: His Innocence and Their Iniquity (109: 1-5)

1 For the choir director. A Psalm of David. O God of my praise, Do not be silent! 2 For they have opened the wicked and deceitful mouth against me; They have spoken against me with a lying tongue. 3 They have also surrounded me with words of hatred, And fought against me without cause. 4 In return for my love they act as my accusers; But I am in prayer. 5 Thus they have repaid me evil for good, And hatred for my love. (NASB)

Verses 1-5 are crucial, not only to this psalm, but to our understanding of imprecation. In this introductory section David makes two claims: (1) his innocence and (2) the iniquity of his enemies. The God who is the object of his praise (v. 1; cf. also Deut. 10:21; Jer. 17:14) is also the One who receives his petitions. David’s plea that God not remain silent in verse 1b is a cry for help, as elsewhere (cf. Ps. 28:1; 35:22; 83:1). The basis for David’s petition is then given in verses 2-5. David is accused by his enemies but is innocent of their charges. He has done good to his enemies, which they have repaid with evil.

I believe that verses 1-5 are crucial to a correct understanding of imprecatory prayers because they inform us about the prerequisites for imprecation. The requirements are rigorous for those who would thus pray. Likewise, those who are worthy of divine wrath are carefully defined. Only the innocent dare pray as David does, and only the wicked need fear the fate which David petitions God to execute.

Let us first consider the innocence of David, which qualifies him to pray as he does. David is, first and foremost, a worshipper of God. He dares not petition his God apart from being a man given to the praise of God (v. 1). While the accusations against David by his enemies are many, they are without basis (cf. Ps. 69:4). He not only has refrained from evil toward the wicked, he has done them nothing but good (v. 5; cf. Ps. 35:12). They hate, but he loves (v. 5). They accuse him, but he prays (for them, it would seem, v. 4).186 The underlying assumption is that David is suffering, not for his sin, but “for righteousness sake”:

Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; dishonor has covered my face. I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s sons. For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me (Ps. 69:7-9).

David does not claim to be sinless here, but he is a worshipper whose heart is right before God.187 Often in the psalms David confesses his own sins: “For I confess my iniquity; I am full of anxiety because of my sin” (Ps. 38:18). “O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, and my wrongs are not hidden from Thee” (Ps. 69:5; cf. 32:5; 51:5). If he has sinned, David asks God to deal with him accordingly:

O Lord my God, if I have done this, if there is injustice in my hands, if I have rewarded evil to my friend, or have plundered him who without cause was my adversary, let the enemy pursue my soul and overtake it; and let him trample my life down to the ground, and lay my glory in the dust (Ps. 7:3-5).

In Psalm 139 while David prayed that God would “slay the wicked” (v. 19), he immediately opens his own heart to God, so that he may have his sins exposed and cleansed: “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me and know my anxious thoughts; and see if there be any hurtful way in me, and lead me in the everlasting way” (Ps. 139:23-24).

David makes his petition to God as one who is dependent on Him for righteousness (cf. Ps. 130:3-8; 143:2). While he is not entirely free from sin, he is right with God by His grace, and he is righteous with regard to the charges of his opponents.

No one dare implore God to act as David does in Psalm 109 unless he himself is innocent in the sense that David was: innocent of the charges of the wicked, and in right standing before God. Let those who would pray for the destruction of their enemies be as quick as David to have God search their own hearts and to deal with them in justice, just as they would have Him judge their enemies. Imprecatory prayers must only be made by the righteous.

Second, let us give due consideration to the wickedness of David’s enemies, which made them worthy of God’s wrath. In Psalm 109 the sin of David’s enemies is expressed almost entirely in terms of the wrongs they have committed against him.188 Elsewhere, however, it is shown that how the wicked treat the righteous is symptomatic of their rebellion against God (cf. Ps. 37:12; 139:19-20).

The nature of the sin of the wicked against David is especially informative. The primary instrument of evil is the tongue of the wicked. They have “opened the wicked and deceitful mouth” and spoken with “a lying tongue” (v. 2). They have surrounded the psalmist with “words” (v. 3) and have “accused” him of wrongdoing (v. 4). I believe that Derek Kidner has best captured the essence of this evil by the title, “The Character-Assassin.”189

In most churches there is some kind of written or understood list of sins which its members are forbidden to commit. For some it may be smoking, drinking, dancing, going to movies, cursing, or perhaps (though less frequently) immorality. I am not trying to challenge here any of the items which may be on your particular list (though they made need challenging!). What I want to stress is how seldom the sin of backbiting is included in those lists. In fact, we have developed very subtle and spiritual-sounding means of committing the sin of character assassination. We “share” the problems of others as prayer requests. This sounds so pious, but frequently it is simply gossip by another label. Let us learn from this psalm that the most severe judgment is called down (and rightly so) upon the sin of character-assassination.

Two lessons should be learned from verses 1-5 concerning those against whom imprecations are made: (1) The imprecations which God hears are those which are made by those who have clean hands and a clean heart. Imprecations are effective only when we see sin as God does and when we ask Him to deal with sin as He has promised to deal with it in His Word. (2) Those against whom imprecations are effective are those who are truly wicked, those who are not just our enemies, but God’s enemies. Psalm 109 is vastly different from a “voodoo” curse. Imprecations are prayers for the punishment of the wicked. While the psalmist is innocent, his enemies are not. This is the basis for his petition for the punishment of the wicked. We are taught in Proverbs that a curse without basis has no effect: “Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, so a curse without cause does not alight” (Prov. 26:2).

Let us not leave these introductory verses without learning that those who would pray a prayer similar to David’s must be like David—they must be those who praise God (not just petition Him), and those who are right before God and men. Those who seek God’s wrath on the guilty should be innocent. Imprecations are only effective against the guilty. In this context and many others, their guilt is the offense of the tongue. God takes our words seriously, and so should we.

A brief word should be said about the identity of the wicked. They apparently were closely associated with David. According to verse 5, they had been the recipients of David’s love, which they had spurned and showed him hatred instead. Examples of David’s enemies include Doeg the Edomite (Ps. 52:1; 1 Sam. 21:7), Shimei (2 Sam. 16:5-8), and Saul (1 Sam. 18–31).190 While it is tempting to try to identify the name of the culprit, it seems obvious that the psalmist did not intend for us to know the individual’s identity. There are good reasons for this. First, the psalmist is committing the wicked to God’s judgment, not man’s. Why should he name the individual when God knew who it was? David, unlike his enemies, was not willing to engage in character-assassination. Secondly, David may have wanted his readers to give more thought to the one behind all accusation, Satan.191 Since the Hebrew word rendered “accuser” is translated satan, Satan’s role may well be indicated. We will return to this subject below.

Third, since the psalms were intended for general use, David did not identify his enemies so that the righteous could supply the names of their adversaries, so to speak.192

David’s Imprecation Against His Enemies (109:6-20)

6 Appoint a wicked man over him; And let an accuser stand at his right hand. 7 When he is judged, let him come forth guilty; And let his prayer become sin. 8 Let his days be few; Let another take his office. 9 Let his children be fatherless, And his wife a widow. 10 Let his children wander about and beg; And let them seek sustenance far from their ruined homes. 11 Let the creditor seize all that he has; And let strangers plunder the product of his labor. 12 Let there be none to extend lovingkindness to him, Nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children. 13 Let his posterity be cut off; In a following generation let their name be blotted out.

14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD, And do not let the sin of his mother be blotted out. 15 Let them be before the LORD continually, That He may cut off their memory from the earth; 16 Because he did not remember to show lovingkindness, But persecuted the afflicted and needy man, And the despondent in heart, to put them to death. 17 He also loved cursing, so it came to him; And he did not delight in blessing, so it was far from him. 18 But he clothed himself with cursing as with his garment, And it entered into his body like water, And like oil into his bones. 19 Let it be to him as a garment with which he covers himself, And for a belt with which he constantly girds himself. 20 Let this be the reward of my accusers from the LORD, And of those who speak evil against my soul. (NASB)

Verses 1-5 are the basis of David’s imprecation. David is innocent, yet his enemies have accused him of wrong-doing. They have engaged in character-assassination. David appeals to God, the object of his praise and adoration, to come to his rescue and to punish his wicked opponents. Verses 6-20 spell out the form which David believes this punishment should take. David’s imprecation is certainly fierce and forthright, but I believe that it is not excessive. The details of David’s imprecation and its doctrinal basis will be the primary aim of our study of these verses.

There is a change in the reference to David’s enemies in the plural (vv. 1-5) to that of the singular in the following verses (vv. 6ff.). The most plausible explanation is that David is moving from the general to the specific. In verses 1-5 his enemies are described as a group, but in verse 6 and following the punishment for which David prays is viewed as occurring individually. Some have suggested that the person singled out in these verses is the leader of David’s opposition.193

Verses 6-13 concentrate on the consequences for sin which are sought both for the man and his family. David asks that a wicked man be set over his foe and that an adversary accuse him (v. 6). If Saul were the enemy in mind, the punishment would simply be to receive in return what he had meted out to David. Let those who oppress those under them taste what it is like to have an evil man over them. Verse 7 seeks a verdict of “guilty” when his enemy is brought to court. David asks God to look upon the prayers of his enemies as sin (v. 7b). David can pray thus because it is consistent with the teaching of the Old Testament that the prayers (and indeed all religious acts) of the wicked are an abomination to God (cf. Prov. 28:9; Isa. 1:15).

Verses 8 and 9 petition God to shorten the life of David’s enemy. This is expressed in a variety of poetic terms. The days of his enemy should be few. His untimely death will require another to take his office (v. 8). It is this verse, you will recall, that was applied to Judas, the betrayer of our Lord, prompting the disciples of our Lord to choose a replacement for Judas among them (cf. Acts 1:20). The death of David’s foe would make his wife a widow and his children orphans (v. 9).

While it may seem unnecessarily severe for David to pray for his enemy’s untimely death and for his family to suffer for his sins, David’s petition is based upon the principles and practices of the Old Testament. God said that the sins of the fathers would be visited on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate God (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9). Also in the Law of Moses God warned that certain sins would bring consequences on the families of the sinner:

“You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless” (Exod. 22:22-24).

This same principle was expressed in the Book of Proverbs:

The curse of the Lord is on the house of the wicked, but He blesses the dwelling of the righteous (Prov. 3:33).

He who returns evil for good, evil will not depart from his house (Prov. 17:13).

Proverbs 17:13 is especially relevant to David’s imprecations in Psalm 109 because it speaks of the penalty borne by those who return evil for good, precisely the sin of David’s foes (Ps. 109:5; cf. 35:12; 38:20). In addition, it warns that the consequences for sin fall on the house of the wicked, not just the individual.

What God taught in principle, He also practiced. God commanded the Israelites to destroy all the Canaanites, including their children (Deut. 20:16-18; Josh. 6:17,21). In response to the rebellion of Korah, God destroyed Korah, Dathan and Abiram, along with their wives, their children, their cattle, and their possessions (Num. 16, cf. esp. vv. 27, 31-33). A man’s sins not only have dire consequences for him personally; they also adversely affect his family (cf. also 1 Sam. 2:30-32).

David further prays for the financial ruin (vv. 10-11) and the family extinction (vv. 12-13) of his enemy. God’s blessing included both material gains and a posterity to benefit from the prosperity He gave (cf. Deut. 28:1-14). However, disobedience was to certainly bring about just the opposite result (Deut. 28:15-68). In praying for the financial ruin of his enemies and their family extinction, David was requesting God to act in accordance with the Mosaic covenant.

David, like the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 18:20-21), cried out to God, petitioning God to do what He had promised. David’s petition may seem harsh to us, but it is no more severe than what God taught and what He personally practiced in dealing with the wicked. Incidentally, the Israelites did not seem to think God’s principles and promises were unreasonable when it came to national blessings, nor when the curses were directed toward their enemies. David’s imprecations in verses 6-13, including the suffering of his enemy’s family, are based upon biblical principles and promises.194

In verses 14-20 David continues to seek the punishment of his foes, but his petition is based upon a slightly different argument. David requested retribution for his enemies.195 Retribution is simply getting what you give. Justice was based on the principle of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21). Jesus reminded His hearers that this principle was never intended to encourage revenge, but was a principle governing judgment to be applied by the judges of Israel (cf. Matt. 5:38-42). David does not himself seek revenge, but he requests God to apply the principle of retribution to his foes. He asks simply that God return on the wicked what they meted out to others, and what they therefore deserve.

Rather than show his adversaries mercy, let God deal with them in the light of their own sins, as well as those of their fathers (vv. 14-15). After all, the sins of the fathers are visited on the children who hate God (Deut. 5:9). The wicked whom David wishes to see punished are those who have shown no mercy to others, but have instead persecuted the afflicted and needy man, even putting him to death (v. 16). They therefore deserve God’s retributive judgment. The merciless should receive no mercy (Prov. 21:13; cf. Matt. 5:7; James 2:13).

Since the wicked love to curse, let cursing come to them (v. 17a). They withheld blessing, so blessings should be withheld from them (v. 17b). Cursing was like a garment to the wicked (v. 18a), so let it become his only clothing (vv. 18b-19). Let all who would accuse David stand accused before God (v. 20). David has thus asked no more than for God to do as He has promised and as the wicked deserve.

David’s Request for Relief (109:21-29)

21 But Thou, O GOD, the Lord, deal kindly with me for Thy name’s sake; Because Thy lovingkindness is good, deliver me; 22 For I am afflicted and needy, And my heart is wounded within me. 23 I am passing like a shadow when it lengthens; I am shaken off like the locust. 24 My knees are weak from fasting; And my flesh has grown lean, without fatness. 25 I also have become a reproach to them; When they see me, they wag their head.

26 Help me, O LORD my God; Save me according to Thy lovingkindness. 27 And let them know that this is Thy hand; Thou, LORD, hast done it. 28 Let them curse, but do Thou bless; When they arise, they shall be ashamed, But Thy servant shall be glad. 29 Let my accusers be clothed with dishonor, And let them cover themselves with their own shame as with a robe. (NASB)

While God is a God of wrath, He is also a God of mercy. As the apostle Paul put it, “Behold then the kindness and severity of God” (Rom. 11:22). In the previous verses (6-20) David has made an imprecation against his enemies. The imprecation was based upon the promises of God and upon the evil practices of those who opposed David. David therefore pled with God to give men what they deserved. Now David appeals to God to deal graciously with him on the basis of God’s character and David’s pitiable condition. Not only did David ask justice for his foes, he now asks mercy for himself.

David’s petition is for God’s grace. It is rightly based on several truths concerning God’s character. First, God is a God who is characterized by “lovingkindness” (vv. 21,26). When David asks God to deal kindly with him for His name’s sake (v. 21), he means that since God is full of lovingkindness He can be called upon to be true to His character in showing mercy and kindness to His children. Secondly, God’s lovingkindness causes Him to be especially touched by the pitiable condition of those who trust in Him and are afflicted. Many of the Psalms reflect this aspect of God’s compassion for the “afflicted and needy” (v. 22), and appeal is often made to God based upon His concern for those in such straits:

When they are diminished and bowed down through oppression, misery, and sorrow, He pours contempt upon princes, and makes them wander in a pathless waste. But He sets the needy securely on high away from affliction, and makes his families like a flock. The upright see it, and are glad; but all unrighteousness shuts its mouth. Who is wise? Let him give heed to these things; and consider the lovingkindnesses of the Lord (Ps. 107:39-43).

I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor (Ps. 140:12).

The Lord supports the afflicted; He brings down the wicked to the ground (Ps. 147:6; cf. also 12:5; 18:27; 35:10; 69:33; 72:4).

Verses 23-25 move from the wounded spirit (v. 22) of the psalmist to his pathetic physical condition, which is a result of oppression at the hand of his enemies. Apparently as skinny as a shadow (v. 23), the psalmist also describes himself as one who is brushed aside as worthless, like a locust is shaken from a garment. His knees are weak from fasting and his body is lean. Rather than inspire pity from his accusers, they despise him and wag their heads in contempt (v. 25). The inference seems to be that they have chosen to interpret David’s suffering as the evidence of his sin, just as Job’s friends reasoned about his condition. A God whose very nature is to take pity on the afflicted can certainly be expected to hear the plea of the psalmist, since he is spiritually and physically miserable.

Verses 26-29 appeal to God for help on the basis of God’s lovingkindness (v. 26) and the fact that the deliverance of David will prove that God’s hand is on him to bless him, not to punish him (vv. 27-29). If the enemies of David have appealed to his suffering as the proof of his guilt, then let God come to his rescue and lift him up. This would show them that God has acted in his behalf. Because they have cursed David, they will be put to shame if God blesses him (v. 28). God’s blessing in David’s life will give him honor and make him glad, but it will reveal that the wicked have covered themselves with shame for their treatment of him (v. 29).

David’s Promise of Praise (109:30-31)

30 With my mouth I will give thanks abundantly to the LORD; And in the midst of many I will praise Him. 31 For He stands at the right hand of the needy, To save him from those who judge his soul. (NASB)

A final reason is given for God’s intervening on David’s behalf. Since God is the “God of David’s praise” (v. 1), He knows that the punishment of David’s enemies and the rescue of the psalmist will result in praise. Verses 30 and 31 are David’s vow of praise. He will praise God for His deliverance in the midst of the congregation (v. 30). The basis for this praise is the psalmist’s experience of seeing God stand at his right hand to defend. The accusers will finally be silenced when God reveals Himself as David’s defender.

Conclusion

It is true, I suspect, that Perowne is correct when he writes, “In the awfulness of its anathemas, the Psalm [109] surpasses everything of the kind in the Old Testament.”196 Because of its fierceness, some scholars such as Kittel have gone so far as to speak of this psalm as containing “… utterly repulsive maledictions inspired by the wildest form of vengeance, which make this one of the most questionable hymns of cursing.”197 Kittel therefore ascribes all of the psalm to “carnal passion that is utterly inexcusable.”198

Others like Cross have questioned the value of such psalms for public worship:

We question the worth for Christian worship of such Psalms as express a spirit of vindictiveness. Christianity is meekness, gentleness, peace. Even the wicked should be regarded as objects of redemptive search. … The spirit of Jesus spoke of forgiveness even upon those who did him to death. As long as we retain in Christian worship material which breathes a spirit of aggression, self-assertion and vengeance, we are contradicting our faith. We cannot hope thus to make our doctrine clear to the world. With such contradictory elements in our worship, we shall not be surprised that the spread of Christianity is slow. We may well wonder that it propagates at all.199

Kidner has stated the problem more conservatively:

The sudden transitions in the psalms from humble devotion to fiery imprecation create an embarrassing problem for the Christian, who is assured that all Scripture is inspired and profitable, but equally that he himself is to bless those who curse him.200

The problems which the imprecatory psalms have raised for the Christian have been answered by a variety of explanations, most of which seem inadequate or inaccurate.201 Before we become too critical of the psalmist and this type of psalm, let us make several observations which must be taken into account.

(1) We are all armchair theologians who have not walked in the shoes of the psalmist. It is easy for those who have not lived through the hellish experiences of saints who have suffered greatly for their faith to be critical of such imprecations. Let us not be quick to criticize those who have tasted the kind of opposition and oppression which David did. Let us learn from the severity of the David’s imprecations the intensity and the cruelty of his adversaries.

(2) The Old Testament saint had a dim picture of the afterlife, thus he was less informed concerning the judgment which will occur after death both for the saved (2 Cor. 5:10) and the unsaved (Rev. 20:12-15). Therefore the Old Testament believer would have been particularly eager to see God deal with the wicked in this life. Consequently a greater urgency is to be expected on the part of the psalmist.

(3) Whatever problems we may have with the imprecations of the Old Testament, the tension between justice and mercy, love and hate, is not a matter of law versus grace or Old Testament versus New Testament. The Old and New Testaments teach the same truths. For instance, the New Testament has much to say about judgment, justice and condemnation. Conversely, the Old Testament teaches us to love our neighbor and not to seek vengeance. In fact, when Paul instructs Christians not to take revenge (Rom. 12:17-21), he uses an Old Testament passage from the Book of Deuteronomy as his proof-text (Rom. 12:19; Deut. 32:35), as well as a quotation from Proverbs 25:21ff. (Rom. 12:20). When Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount he was not teaching a new law, but was reiterating what the law had always taught. The Jewish religious system had set aside this law, replacing the truth with their own traditions.

(4) The psalms are not hastily scribbled personal vendettas, but carefully penned poetry. The indignation is not that of a quick, volatile explosion but that of a smoldering fire. You will remember that God is not without anger, but rather “slow to anger” (cf. Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Ps. 86:15).

(5) The psalmist claims to be “spiritual” in his petition that God take vengeance on his enemies. Either the psalmist is self-deceived, a hypocrite or a liar.

(6) Every petition for justice and divine retribution is based upon biblical principles, precepts and practices. The psalmist pleads with God to act on the basis of His character (just and righteous), His covenant promises (e.g. Deut. 28), His conduct (e.g., in the destruction of Korah and his entire family, Num. 16).

(7) It is perhaps incorrect to refer to any psalm as an “imprecatory psalm” for the simple reason that while imprecation is a part of the psalm, it is not the whole of it. We are thus judging the whole by one part. Judgment is one theme, one aspect of God’s dealings with men, but not the whole. As Paul put it, let us consider “the goodness and the severity of God” (Rom. 11:22).

(8) When David or any other biblical character prays an imprecation, you will observe that the matter is left entirely with God. Godly men and women prayed to God about their enemies, and they specified (on the basis of God’s word) what they felt should happen to them. Yet they committed the wicked to God to deal with according to His word, in His time and in His own way. I personally believe that just as God’s prophecies left room for repentance and salvation (e.g. Jer. 18:5-10; cp. Jon. 3:8-10), so the very severity with which the psalmist spoke may have shocked some of the wicked into facing the seriousness of their sin and turning them to repentance.

(9) While the prayers of David are severe, his personal actions toward his enemies was gracious and kind. Suppose for a moment that Saul might have been the subject of Psalm 109. Saul deserved everything for which David prayed. Saul also received much for which David prayed. Yet David absolutely refused to take personal revenge, even when he had the opportunity. When he had the chance to kill Saul, he cut off a piece of his robe instead (1 Sam. 24:1-8)—later he was conscience-stricken for the spirit which had prompted this act (v. 5). David may have prayed fiercely, but his actions were absolutely gracious and kind.

(10) The church discipline of the New Testament is not really that different from the imprecatory psalms of the Old Testament. The New Testament also contains curses. Paul cursed Elymas for resisting the gospel (Acts 13:6-11) and damned any who would pervert it (Gal. 1:8-9). Peter pronounced sentence on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan (1 Tim. 1:20) as he did the man living with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5:5). I personally believe that the final step of church discipline involves turning the sinner over to Satan (under God’s sovereign control, cf. Matt. 18:17-20) so that he may be severely chastened, with the goal of his repentance and restoration (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:5-11).

All of the above observations lead me to the conclusion that the imprecatory psalms are far more relevant and applicable to Christians today than we would like to admit. Why then are we so uneasy about them? Essentially I think the answer is that we have a distorted view of God, perverted by our own sin. We want to think of God only in terms of love and mercy, but not in terms of justice and judgment. We are soft on sin. I think we have become entangled in a satanic conspiracy. We have adopted the thinking summarized by the expression, “I’m O.K., You’re O.K.” If you will pardon me for doing so, I could entitle Psalm 109, “I’m O.K., but You’re Not.” Such was the conviction of the psalmist. Most of us know that we are not O.K. Therefore we respond by going easy on others, hoping our laxity will make things easier on us. Let me tell you that if we had the courage and the conviction to pray as David did, we would be very ill at ease in regard to our own sins. Our greatest problem with imprecatory psalms is that the psalmist takes sin much more seriously than we do.

You may wish to challenge me by stressing that while we must hate sin, we should not hate the sinner. We want to think that God hates the sin, but He loves the sinner. I must ask you then, why does God send men to hell? Why isn’t hell a terrible place of torment for Satan and his angels and sin? Why is hell a place where people go? I don’t think it is as possible as we think to separate the sin from the sinner. This is not the solution to our problem.

I believe that in David’s case his enemies were God’s enemies whom God hated (cf. Rom. 9:13—in some sense, at least, God “hated” Esau). The solution was not to separate the sin and the sinner, but to commit both to God. This freed David from personal vengeance, enabling him to “love his enemies” (cf. Ps. 109:5) and treat them with kindness (as David did to Saul, Shimei, and the rest of his enemies). Let us not strive so hard to separate the sin from the sinner as to separate the sin from our attitudes and actions toward the sinner. I believe that David responded as he did to his enemies because he was a “man after God’s own heart.” Our problem is that we look at sin and sinners more from a human viewpoint than from the divine.

The amazing thing is that when we strive to conjure up human feelings of love and forgiveness, we really can’t love or forgive our enemies. The best we can do is to suppress our feelings of anger and hostility. When the psalmist prayed as he did in Psalm 109, he admitted his feelings and his desires (which were in accordance with God’s character and His covenant with men). He was thereby relieved of his hostility by committing the destiny of the wicked to God. Punishment and vengeance belong to God. By giving up vengeance we free ourselves to love and to forgive in a way that we cannot produce in and of ourselves.

Let us learn from the imprecatory psalms that a hard stand on sin is the best way to prevent sin. Let me tell you it must have been some experience to gather as a congregation in days of old and sing Psalm 109. Remember, the psalm was written for public worship. To sing its words was to remind the saints how the godly should respond to sin. In so doing each individual was reminded of the seriousness of sin and the dire consequences which accompany it. To be soft on sin is to give it a greenhouse in which to grow. To be hard on sin is to hinder its growth, not only in the lives of others but in our own as well.

My friend, the beautiful message of the Gospel is that the vengeance for which the psalmist prayed need not fall upon you. Jesus Christ came to the earth to take upon Himself our sins and our punishment. God placed upon His Son the punishment which David petitioned God to bring upon his enemies. No one who places his trust in the solution to sin—the Savior, Jesus Christ—need suffer the consequences of sin. It is only those who resist and reject God’s solution who suffer His temporal and eternal wrath. The psalmist who prayed for God’s justice for his enemies also petitioned God for His mercy and lovingkindness. God offers mercy and forgiveness to all, but He also promises justice and judgment to all who reject His Son. I encourage you to place your trust in Jesus Christ, the sin-bearer who died in your place and suffered even more than Psalm 109 describes.

183 In a more secular sense an imprecation is a curse on one’s enemies. In religious terms an imprecation is a prayer for evil or misfortune to befall another. In the Bible an imprecatory prayer is the prayer of a righteous man petitioning God to carry out justice by bringing punishment or destruction upon evildoers, especially those who have mistreated him.

185 Bernhard W. Anderson, Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974), pp. 61-62. Anderson’s words here do not reflect his position, but are intended to bring the problem of the imprecatory prayers of the Bible into focus. His comments on the imprecatory psalms (pp. 60-67) are excellent.

186 In Psalm 35 David illustrates the wickedness of his enemies by contrasting his mercy with their cruelty. When they were afflicted, he fasted and prayed for them (vv. 13-14), but when he was afflicted they rejoiced, smiting and slandering him (vv. 15-16).

187 In the introduction to his commentary on the Psalms, Kirkpatrick addresses the subject of the innocence of the psalmists: “Some of these utterances are no more than asseverations that the speaker is innocent of particular crimes laid to his charge by his enemies (vii. 3ff.); others are general professions of purity of purpose and single-hearted devotion to God (xvii. 1ff.). They are not to be compared with the self-complacency of the Pharisee, who prides himself on his superiority to the rest of the world, but with St Paul’s assertions of conscious rectitude (Acts xx. 26ff.; xxii. 1). They breathe the spirit of simple faith and childlike trust, which throws itself unreservedly on God. Those who make them do not profess to be absolutely sinless, but they do claim to belong to the class of the righteous who may expect God’s favour, and they do disclaim all fellowship with the wicked, from whom they expect to be distinguished in the course of His Providence.” A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1982), p. lxxxvii.

188 Even in verse 16 it would seem that the “afflicted and needy man” is really the psalmist himself.

190 Perowne refers his readers to an article by Rev. Joseph Hammond entitled “An Apology for the Vindictive Psalm,” contained in the Expositor, vol. ii. pp. 225-360, in which that writer attempts (convincingly, in Perowne’s mind) to show that Shimei is the one referred to in Psalm 109. Cf. Perowne, II, pp. 287-288.

191 “The word accuser, or adversary (satan), is prominent in the psalm, coming again in verses 20 and 29, while the corresponding verb has already appeared in verse 4. In those verses he is the enemy’s man; so this prayer wishes the enemy a taste of his own medicine. It is the word, incidentally, from which Satan derives his title and name, since he presses the case against the righteous with relish and with every artifice (cf. Jb. 1:6ff.; 2:1ff.; Rev. 12:10). In Zechariah 3:1 he is seen standing at the right hand of the man on trial, as the accuser does here …” Kidner, Psalms 73-150, pp. 389-390.

192 After surveying the possibilities for identifying the “enemies” referred to in the imprecatory psalms, Anderson has some excellent concluding remarks: “None of these interpretations is completely satisfactory. The plain truth is that we really do not know who the enemies were, for the psalmist expresses his distress in stylized language which had been employed for centuries in cultic situations. … This explains why the enemies in the individual laments are so faceless, and it also helps to account for the fact that these psalms are usable by many different people in times of trouble. The psalmist does not talk boringly about the details of his personal situation (like the proverbial person who inflicts the story of his operation on his friends); he does not turn introspectively to his own inner life. Rather, by using conventional language he affirms that his situation is typical of every man who struggles with the meaning of his life in the concrete situations of tension, hostility, and conflict. That is why these psalms have been used down through the centuries by suppliants who cry to God out of their concrete situation. They seem to leave a blank, as it were, for the insertion of your own personal name.” Bernhard W. Anderson, Out of the Depths, p. 60.

193 “The singular (‘over him’ &c.), which now takes the place of the plural, may be collective, the Psalmist’s enemies being regarded as a whole; or distributive, each one of the mass being singled out: but more probably it fastens upon the leader of the gang (v. 2) upon whom rests the real guilt. Cp. for the sudden transition lv. 12ff., 20ff.” Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, p. 655.

194 Even in the New Testament the children of the wicked are said to suffer for the sins of their fathers, cf. Luke 19:41-44, esp. v. 44.

199 A quote by Earle Bennett Cross, Modern Worship and the Psalter (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1932), p. 29, as cited by Rupe Simms in an unpublished article entitled, “The Imprecatory Literature of the Psalms: A Study in Moral, Biblical and Theological Tensions.”

201 There are many explanations for the “severity” of the imprecatory psalms. Some of the most frequently used are: (1) David didn’t write Psalm 109. (2) David wrote this psalm but in a carnal state of mind (cf. Kittel, above, fn. 16). (3) The words of this psalm are not a wish, but a prophecy. (David is not praying that these terrible things will happen to his enemies, only prophesying that they will be punished for their wickedness.) (4) The words of verses 6-20 are actually the words of David’s enemies, which David quotes as evidence of their evil attacks against him. (5) The expressions used are poetic and figurative, and not to be taken literally. (6) The “enemies” David prays against are not his personal enemies, but spiritual forces (e.g. Ephesians 6:10-12ff.) against whom such prayers are justified. (7) The prayers of Psalm 109 and other imprecatory psalms were correct for a saint who lived in the dispensation of the Law, but are not appropriate for those living in the Age of Grace: “… whilst we need not suppose that the indignation which burns so hotly is other than a righteous indignation, yet that we are to regard it as permitted under the Old Testament rather than justifiable under the New. Surely there is nothing in such an explanation which in the smallest degree impugns the Divine authority of the earlier Scriptures. In how many respects have the harsher outlines of the legal economy been softened down by “the mind that was in Christ Jesus.” … As in the Sermon on the Mount He substitutes the moral principle for the legal enactment, so here He substitutes the spirit of gentleness, meekness, endurance of wrongs, for the spirit of fiery though righteous indignation. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, but it is inferior to it.” Perowne, I, p. 64.

14. Psalm 110: David’s Lord

Introduction

The atmosphere was tense. Jesus had just entered Jerusalem on the foal of a donkey. This was a bold, Messianic claim on the part of our Lord which was not missed by the crowds who greeted Him with outspread garments and branches and the words, “Hosanna to the Son of David; Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest!” (Matt. 21:9).

Jesus’ triumphal entry caused the crowds to ponder His identity (Matt. 21:10-11), but this act, followed by His cleansing of the temple (vv. 12-15) served only to intensify the jealousy and anger of the chief priests and scribes (v. 15). Defensively, they challenged our Lord, “By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?” (v. 23). This commenced a heated debate between the Lord Jesus and the religious leaders of the nation Israel. Jesus put them on the spot regarding the origin of John the Baptist’s ministry, which they declined to answer (vv. 24-27). He then taught in pointed parables which were intended to reveal the fact that His rejection by the scribes and Pharisees was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (21:33–22:14).

Now this was going too far! The scribes and Pharisees became intent upon trapping Jesus in His teaching, thereby discrediting Him before the crowds (22:15). They asked him about paying taxes to Caesar, a most sensitive issue (vv. 16-22). The Sadducees asked a question about the resurrection (vv. 23-33). A lawyer asked a question about the most important commandment (vv. 34-40). In each of these efforts the opposition was embarrassed and our Lord’s teaching was shown to surpass that of His opponents (cf. 22:29-33).

This “great debate” was concluded by a question which our Lord posed to His critics:

Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “Then how does David in the Sprit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I put thine enemies beneath Thy feet?”’ If David then calls Him ‘Lord’, how is He his son?” (Matt. 22:41-45).

The debate was over. Jesus had decisively won (cf. 22:46). But, of course, this only solidified the opposition and brought the crisis to a head. The crucifixion was, in the minds of the religious leaders, to be their final response.

Our study has to do with Psalm 110, from which our Lord quoted in order to demonstrate that His claim to be Israel’s Messiah was consistent with Old Testament prophecy. Jesus’ commentary on Psalm 110:1 sets the stage for our study of this psalm, for He has made three statements which we dare not overlook in our study:

(1) David is the author of the psalm.

(2) What David wrote was divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

(3) David was not writing about just any king, but about Messiah, who was to be his son and his Lord.202

Jesus was not claiming to teach anything new when He taught the three things mentioned above. What He taught was a matter of record, in the psalm itself. The superscription named David as the author. Unfortunately, what was readily evident to the Jews of Jesus’ day is not so apparent to us due to the translation of the word “says” in Psalm 110:1, which obscures a much more emphatic claim.

The Hebrew word ne’um, is a reference to a divine oracle. Perowne informs us that, “The word is used in almost every instance of the immediate utterance of God Himself, more rarely of that of the prophet or inspired organ of the Divine revelations, as of Balaam, Num. xxiv. 3, 15; of David, 2 Sam. xxiii. 1.”203

Kidner plays out the implications of this significant term: “The first line, after the title, runs literally, ‘The oracle of Yahweh to my lord’. It is an opening which stamps the next words as God’s direct message to His king, …”204

What Jesus said about this psalm would have come as no surprise to His audience. They, too, believed David was the psalm’s author, that he wrote by inspiration, and that he spoke of Messiah. What the religious leaders were unwilling to admit was that David’s Lord was both divine and human, that Messiah was both David’s Sovereign and his son.

Our Lord’s frequent use of Psalm 110 should therefore serve as a signal to us of the significance of this psalm. It is unique in that it is quoted more often than another Old Testament passage.205 It is also distinct as a directly Messianic psalm. Basically, Messianic psalms are of two types: (1) those which are indirectly (or typically) Messianic, and (2) those which are directly Messianic. In a typically Messianic psalm, the psalmist writes of his own experiences, but in words that go beyond his own circumstances and describe the experience of Messiah as well. Psalm 22 is an example of a typically Messianic psalm. A directly Messianic psalm does not refer to the psalmist’s experience at all, but speaks only of the Messiah to come. Such is the case in Psalm 110.206

When David writes here, it is as a prophet and as a poet. As a prophet, he speaks beyond his own understanding and experience. He writes as the other human authors of Scripture, under the control of the Holy Spirit, yet maintaining his own unique style (cf. 2 Pet. 1:20-21). As a poet-prophet, David spoke of future things by the use of poetic imagery. These were deliberately employed “… brief but powerful figures, each of which is strikingly brief but extremely suggestive.”207 In the light of this mixture of poetry and prophecy, we must be prepared to consider future things in terms that are more poetic than precise, and thus we must also take care not to press this poetry too far. This psalm, like God’s guidance, is to be viewed more in terms of a compass than of a map. Let us therefore be careful about the minutia and concentrate on the message of this great psalm.

The structure of the psalm has been understood in a variety of ways, but the simplest is to see a two-fold division. Verses 1-3 are David’s poetic expression of a divine oracle; verses 4-7 are his report of a divine oath.

A Divine Oracle (110:1-3)

1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.” 2 The LORD will stretch forth Thy strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Thine enemies.” 3 Thy people will volunteer freely in the day of Thy power; In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Thy youth are to Thee as the dew. (NASB)

Verse 1 is a summary statement, which is subsequently amplified in verses 2 and 3. As already noted, “says” in verse 1 is a technical term, designating an oracle. David is reporting a solemn prophetic statement of God. Yahweh (the “Lord” of v. 1) is described as speaking, not to David, but rather to David’s Lord (“my Lord,” Hebrew, ‘Adhoni, v. 1), the Messiah. Messiah is given the position of co-regent. To “sit at God’s right hand” meant to share His power and His position. This expression was common in the ancient Near East, the closest parallel probably being found in the New Testament:

And James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Him, saying to Him, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” And they said to Him, “Grant that we may sit in Your glory, one on Your right, and one on Your left” (Mark 10:35-37).

While the Messiah was to share in the power and prestige of Yahweh’s reign, there was a gap of time indicated between the time of His exaltation (“Sit …”) and His triumph (“until”).208 There is both a present and a future dimension to the prophetic oracle of Yahweh. The enemies of the Messiah will, at a later time, be subjected to Him, but not immediately. To make someone “the footstool for their feet” (v. 1c) was to completely subject him (cf. Ps. 8:6; 18:39), an expression probably based upon the practice of military conquerors who placed their feet on the necks of their defeated foes (cf. Josh. 10:24-25). Messiah was elevated to a position of equality with Yahweh, yet the outworking of His power was yet viewed as future.

Verses 2 and 3 focus on that yet future victory of Messiah over His foes, first in view of the enemies who resist Him (v. 2), and next in view of those who are His faithful followers (v. 3). A time will come when Yahweh will hand the scepter to Messiah, an indication that He now is to utterly subdue His foes. The “scepter” is the symbol of the king’s right to rule. At this appointed time, Messiah will establish His rule209 over His enemies. It is at this time that Yahweh will “make His enemies a footstool for His feet” (v. 1c). Messiah’s kingdom is viewed as extending from Zion. David’s capital was, of course, in Jerusalem. Some have suggested as well that Jewish tradition had it that Salem, Melchizedek’s capital, was also Jerusalem.210

While verse 2 describes Messiah’s victory in more negative terms, verse 3 speaks of the host of volunteers who gladly join in following Messiah as their king. Messiah powerfully suppresses His foes, but His friends and followers are those who gladly join Him. The expression “volunteer freely” literally means “free-will offerings,” a term “… applied to any sacrifices or offerings that were entirely voluntary.”211 Most interesting is the fact that these volunteers were pictured as priests. They were said to be clothed in “holy array.” This seems to be parallel to what is said in the Book of Revelation: “And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses” (Rev. 19:14).

The garments of Aaron and the priests were also linen (cf. Exod. 28:39, 42; Lev. 6:10; 16:4) and were called ‘holy garments’ (Exod. 28:4; Lev. 16:4).212 The army of our Lord, then, was an army of priests. What could be more appropriate in the light of what Yahweh will say in verse 4? The figure of the dew falling in the early hours of the morning may speak of the freshness and enthusiasm of a multitude of followers.213

The oracle of Yahweh is addressed not to David, nor to any human king, but to Messiah, who while divine, was also David’s son. This mystery was to trouble many an Israelite, including those who made up the audience of our Lord at the “great debate.” Yahweh’s word to Messiah was that He would be seated beside Him, co-equal in power and in prestige. At an undesignated future date the rule of Messiah would be established. Yahweh’s enemies would be subdued and many would volunteer to serve Him freely.

A Divine Oath (110:4-7)

4 The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “Thou art a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” 5 The Lord is at Thy right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. 6 He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country. 7 He will drink from the brook by the wayside; Therefore He will lift up His head. (NASB)

In verse 4 Messiah’s dominion is further described as that of a great High Priest who will crush kings and judge nations. Verse 1 began with the announcement of a divine oracle. Verse 4 carries on with the pronouncement of a solemn oath. This verse is the heart of the psalm, a fact which is indicated not only by Yahweh’s oath,214 but also by the significance attached to it by the writer to the Hebrews, who bases chapters 5-7 of his epistle upon the truth revealed here. The oath is doubly solemn, for Yahweh vows that He will not change His mind (v. 1c). (The significance of the oath does not pass by the writer to the Hebrews without notice, cf. Heb. 7:20-22.) Yahweh is not only a king, but a priest-king, after the order of Melchizedek.

Israel was said by God to be a “kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6). To a limited extent the king had some functions which might resemble those of the priests (cf. 2 Sam. 6:14, 17, 18; 1 Ki. 8:22ff.), but the Aaronic priesthood was distinct, as can be seen by the consequences for Saul’s presumptuous act of offering the burnt offering in Samuel’s place (1 Sam. 13:8-14). Perhaps the division of kings and priests was an ancient version of “separation of church and state.” The depravity of man is such that too much power cannot be vested in one man. Only in the Messiah would the offices of king and priest be united:

“Then say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the Lord. Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the Lord, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices”’” (Zech. 6:12-13; cf. Jer. 30:21).

Messiah was to be a priest, but a priest of a new order, a priest “after the order of Melchizedek.” Melchizedek is an obscure figure who appears and then passes from the scene in Genesis chapter 14. He is a Gentile, for he certainly did not descend from Abraham. He was the “king of Salem” (14:18), which some feel was the city of Jerusalem. The word “Salem” also meant “peace,” so he was the king of peace. He is also identified as a “priest of God Most High” (v. 18). This king-priest pronounced a blessing on Abram and received his tithe, a tenth of the spoils of war (v. 20; cf. Heb. 7:4). Melchizedek appeared after Abram and his men had defeated Chedorlaomer and his allies (v. 17), reminding Abram that the battle was the Lord’s victory (v. 20). This may have been a bit humbling to Abram after all the flattery must have been directed to him by the king of Sodom. Abram rightly gave God the glory for his victory and refused to take any of the spoils of war for himself (vv. 22-24).

Messiah would be a priest like Melchizedek. He would be a priest for all nations, not just Israel. He would be a king-priest, combining two offices. His reign would be without beginning and without end, just as Melchizedek, in that his origin and destiny was not known either (not, of course, that he was eternal, but that his appearance was mysterious, just as his exit). As Abram saw Melchizedek to be associated with the victory God had given him, so Messiah will be victorious in battle against His foes, a matter to be discussed in verses 5-7.

Just as verse 1 above was present action followed by a future victory in verses 2-3, so verse 4 is a present proclamation worked out in a future victory in verses 5-7. Some are greatly puzzled by the bloody scene described in verses 5-7. How can this priest-king, who is likened to Melchizedek, the king of peace, be involved in such a blood bath as we find in these verses?215

Several observations should help us reconcile this apparent problem:

(1) This psalm is one which promises Messiah victory over His foes.

(2) The army of Messiah is made up of priests who willingly volunteer for His service. If they are warrior-priests, how can their leader be other than a king-priest who wars against His foes?

(3) The Old Testament priesthood was militant, rather than pacifistic.216 When the Israelites became immoral and unrestrained in their idolatrous worship of the golden calf, Moses called the faithful to himself and the sons of Levi put on their swords and slew three thousand people for their sin (Ex. 32:25-28). Likewise, it was Phinehas, one of the priests, who slew the Israelite and his Midianite mistress with his spear (Num. 25:1-8). The priests were called to conduct holy war on sin. Messiah, the king-priest, and His priestly followers will shed the blood of the enemies of the Lord.

(4) The “imprecatory” (“Go, Get ’um, God”) psalms are based upon the fact that God will come and will destroy the wicked. This is what Messiah is described as doing here.

(6) In the Book of Revelation, Messiah is said to do battle with His enemies, something described in very bloody terms (cf. Rev. 6:15-16; 19:11-21).

(7) While Messiah is a priest in the sense of an advocate for those who fear Him, He is an adversary for those who reject His sacrifice. If a person rejects the shed blood of the Savior, he remains God’s enemy and his blood will be on his own hands.

While Messiah is seated at the right hand of Yahweh in verse 1, it is Yahweh who is at Messiah’s right hand in verses 5-6.217 In the first instance Messiah is seated, at rest. In the second, Messiah is standing in battle against His foes. The description is one of complete and total victory for Messiah and utter defeat for His foes (“shatter,” “fill with corpses”). Those who are defeated are the most powerful opponents, “kings” (v. 5) and “chief men” (v. 6). The victory is overwhelming.

Verse 7 is somewhat enigmatic, but it appears to be a poetic description of Messiah, weary from the battle, stooping to drink water from a torrential stream, and then, strengthened by this, with uplifted head, going forth in renewed strength to finish His task.

Conclusion

In one sense we may correctly say that this Psalm had little relationship to David since it is a divine oracle, a direct revelation from God, and since it does not speak of him, but only of his descendant, the Messiah. But while this is true, the message of this psalm had great relevance to David, particularly in the light of two events in David’s life. The first is recorded in 2 Samuel chapter 7, which is introduced by these words: “Now it came about when the king lived in his house, and the Lord had given him rest on every side from all his enemies, that the king said to Nathan the prophet, ‘See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent curtains’” (2 Sam. 7:1-2).

David was enjoying a temporary state of political and military rest. All of his enemies were subdued. During this lull, David was able to build himself a lovely palace, which troubled him when he realized that while his house was luxurious, the ark of God (which had been returned to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6) was kept in a tent.

David desired to build a temple, and Nathan quickly consented. God, however, did not agree. Speaking through Nathan, God informed David that He had not needed a temple since He brought Israel out of Egypt, and that He had never asked for one either. Instead, God had provided His people with a dwelling place where they would not be disturbed (vv. 5-10). It was not David who would build a house for God, but God who would build a house for David:

“The Lord also declares to you that the Lord will make a house for you. When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever” (2 Sam. 7:11b-16).

I believe that David may very well have received the divine oracle contained in Psalm 110 shortly after receiving this revelation from God through Nathan in 2 Samuel chapter 7. On the one hand, David may have become overly confident on account of his military victories and the apparent strength of his kingdom. Whenever a man ceases to become utterly dependent upon God and begins to think in terms of doing something for God (such as building a temple), trouble may be near. Psalm 110 would have served to remind David that the “rest” which God had promised Israel was not realized in the kingdom which David had established. That was not the millennium, as David may have been tempted to suppose. Psalm 110 may then have reinforced the promise of God in 2 Samuel 7 in such a way as to humble David, reminding him that the kingdom was still future, not to be established by him, nor even by his son Solomon, but by Messiah.

If Psalm 110 humbled David, it also gave him hope. The promise of God to build David a house in 2 Samuel 7 was reiterated in Psalm 110, but it clearly stated that God’s kingdom would be established by a son of David who was Divine, David’s Lord. A perfect kingdom needed a perfect king, and this would be neither David nor Solomon (cf. II Sam. 7:14). How much more hope Psalm 110 offered David after his devastating sin with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11-12). When David was overcome with guilt and shame, how could he ever conceive of God building an eternal kingdom through him? It could not be, except for the certainty of the promises of God and the assurance that God would provide a perfect king to establish the promised kingdom. Psalm 110 would have served both to humble David as well as to give him hope. His was not the kingdom, but from him the kingdom would come—through his son and his Lord, Messiah.

What was true for David would also have held true for the nation Israel.218 Perhaps they, too, felt that they had arrived once David was king and they had subdued their enemies. If this were the case, Psalm 110 would remind the nation that God’s kingdom was still future. In those dark days when Israel sinned and was cast from the land, Psalm 110 would continue to hold out the promise of the kingdom which was yet to be established, not by David or Solomon, but by David’s descendant, Messiah.

Psalm 110 was especially pertinent to our Lord. Remember that this psalm was addressed, not to David, but to Messiah, David’s Lord (110:1, 4). What comfort and reassurance this psalm must have given our Lord Jesus, knowing that He was the Messiah. It promised Him not only resurrection, but also the ascension and exaltation with the Father. It promised as well that He would someday subdue His enemies and establish God’s reign upon the earth.

This psalm not only offered personal assurance and comfort to the Lord Jesus, it also gave Him proof for those who would challenge His identity and His message. In John chapter 5 our Lord reminded His critics that He did not merely bear witness of Himself, but that God the Father bore witness of Him, both through His Word (the Old Testament scriptures) and His miraculous works (cf. John 5:34-40). Thus, when challenged at the “great debate” (Matt. 21:23-22:46), our Lord could turn to Psalm 110:1 in His defense. The Messiah to which David referred in Psalm 110 was understood by those of Jesus’ day (on the basis of passages such as 2 Sam. 7:11-16) to be David’s son (Matt. 22:42). Our Lord pointed out in addition that David referred to his “son” as his “Lord.” If David’s son was also his Lord, then Messiah must be both divine and human. The very thing which they objected to, namely Jesus’ claim to be equal with God (cf. John 8), is the conclusion to which Psalm 110 leads us. Jesus was the God-man, just as God had indicated through His “prophet” David.

How should you and I respond to the prophecy of Psalm 110? In two words, very seriously. The message of the psalm is even more powerful today than it was in David’s time. In the first place, the final fulfillment of the psalm is still future. We look forward to its fulfillment just as men in that day did. Secondly, the message, to use Peters expression, is a “prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention” (2 Pet. 1:18). The message of the Book of Acts and the epistles is that the first part of the prophecy of the psalm has been fulfilled in the resurrection and ascension of our Lord to the right hand of the Father (cf. Acts 2:34-35; Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20). If God has faithfully fulfilled the first part of His promise, how much more sure is the completion of God’s purpose as spelled out in this psalm? As Peter said, we do well to pay attention to it.

The revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ as the person of whom David spoke should cause us to seriously consider our relationship to this One who will soon establish His rule over the earth. We can relate to Him in only one of two ways, both of which are suggested in the psalm itself. We can relate to the Messiah as an enemy. We can reject the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah who died as God’s sacrifice for sinners. If such is the case, the great priest-king will relate to us as God’s avenger, who will come to rule with a rod of iron, “shattering” (that is the word we find in the psalm, cf. vv. 5, 6) His foes. In the New Testament Book of Revelation chapter 19 we find the same destruction described:

And I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He judges and wages war. … And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in mid-heaven, “Come, assemble for the great supper of God; in order that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great.” And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, assembled to make war against Him who sat upon the horse, and against His army. And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat upon the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh (Rev. 19:11, 17-21).

The reason for the delay in Messiah’s return is not apathy or disinterest, but mercy. God is giving men time to repent and turn in faith to Messiah as their Savior, rather than to face Him as soldier-king who must destroy the enemies of God (cf. 2 Pet. 3:3-12).

For those who have come to trust in Jesus as their Messiah and who willingly follow Him, they find Him no longer an awesome adversary, but an advocate and friend. In the Book of Hebrews the writer spells out the implications of Christ’s priesthood, now that He has died, risen, and ascended to the right hand of the Father. Christ’s humanity, when added to His deity, makes Him a compassionate advocate, intercessor, and friend:

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:14-16).

Not only is our Great High Priest our helper, He is our hope:

This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 6:19-20).

With such an advocate, let us press on to the goal, “fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2). Just as our Lord endured the suffering of the cross, assured of the promise of God contained in Psalm 110, let us likewise persevere in our faith, knowing that our hope is secure in the Messiah, David’s son and David’s sovereign.

Finally, let us learn from our Lord and His apostles how we ought to use this psalm, and, in fact, all prophecy. First, we should always apply prophesy personally. We should respond to prophetic promises as the certain purposes of God and we should live our present lives in the light of these certainties. Second, we should use prophecy to encourage other saints and to evangelize the lost. What is a word of comfort to a Christian is also a word of warning to the unbeliever. Just as Peter warned those of his day to repent before the coming day of divine wrath (Acts 2), so we should use the prophecies of scripture to warn men of God’s impending wrath. (I think Hal Lindsey’s book, The Late Great Planet Earth, is but one illustration of the evangelistic application of prophecy.) We should employ the fulfilled prophecies of God’s word apologetically, to show the reliability of the Bible.

We should be very careful to distinguish the major point of prophecy—its message—from its particulars. It is noteworthy that the best commentaries are those given in scripture after its (total or partial) fulfillment. Neither David nor any other Old Testament saint was able to outline the course of events which would bring about the fulfillment of the prophecy which he recorded. Only after its fulfillment was such an outline possible.

I find too many Christians misusing prophecy. They seem to be more interested in outlines of projected programs and timetables than they do in the message of the prophet to their lives and others in their own time. Prophecy to some has become a kind of puzzle to ponder over and to argue with others about. Most of the prophecies of the Old Testament were not fulfilled in the lifetime of the prophet or of his readers. What, then, did the prophecy have to say to those who would not see its fulfillment? The very same message it contains for those of all ages—that God is sovereign in history. God’s promises are true and they will surely come to pass. In the light of this certainty—whether fulfillment comes in my lifetime or 1,000 years later—I must live in the light of the truth that God is coming to judge the wicked and to reward the righteous. What I do in the limited time I now have will have eternal consequences. This is the one message which prophecy has for all men in every age. Let us not become so fascinated with the particulars of prophecy (while they may well be important) that we obscure the point—God is in control! Let us then live in the light of this certainty.

202 There are many who attempt to dilute the force of Jesus’ argument in this passage and its parallels, all of which boil down to the assumption that Jesus was ignorant of matters pertaining to higher criticism (i.e., He didn’t know David didn’t write this psalm), or that He merely accomodated His audience in their ignorance (i.e., He did know that David didn’t write Psalm 110, but He didn’t wish to “trouble the waters” by getting into this matter, when they mistakenly thought he did write it). For an example of mediating and vascillating positions on this matter, cf. A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [reprint], 1982), pp. 660-665, and J. J. Steward Perowne, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Zondervan [reprint], 1976), pp. 294-304, 313-315.

Kidner, with his usual precision, writes, “Nowhere in the Psalter does so much hang on the familiar title A Psalm of David as it does here; nor is the authorship of any other psalm quite so emphatically endorsed in other parts of Scripture. To amputate this opening phrase, or to allow it no reference to the authorship of the psalm, is to be at odds with the New Testament, which finds King David’s acknowledgment of his ‘Lord’ highly significant. For while other psalms share with this one the exalted language which points beyond the reigning king to the Messiah, here alone the king himself does homage to this personage—thereby settling two important questions: whether the perfect king was someone to come, or simply the present ruler idealized; and whether the one to come would be merely man at his best, or more than this.

“Our Lord gave full weight to David’s authorship and David’s words, stressing the former twice by the expression ‘David himself,’ and the latter by the comment that he was speaking ‘in the Holy Spirit’ (Mk. 12:36f.) and by insisting that his terms presented a challenge to accepted ideas of the Messiah, which must be taken seriously. Peter, too, on the Day of Pentecost, stressed the contrast in the psalm between David ‘himself’ and his ‘Lord’, who ‘ascended into the heavens’ to be ‘exalted at the right hand of God’ (Acts 2:33-35).” Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1975), pp. 391-392.

J. I. Packer does an excellent job of pursuing the implications of the kind of theology which supposes Jesus to be either ignorant of the authorship of Psalm 110 or to be accommodating Himself to the ignorance of His audience. Cf. Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), pp. 51-55.

203 Perowne, II, p. 311.

204 Kidner, p. 393. Perowne agrees when he writes, “This Psalm claims emphatically to be the fruit and record of a Divine revelation. The words of the Poet, though shaped in the Poet’s heart, come to him from the very sanctuary of the Most High.” Perowne, II, p. 294.

205 “The Psalm is not only quoted by our Lord as Messianic in the passages already referred to; it is more frequently cited by the New Testament writers than any other single portion of the ancient Scriptures.” Ibid, p. 300.

206 “It seems to me, then, that we are shut up to the conclusion, that in this lofty and mysterious Psalm, David, speaking by the Holy Ghost …, was carried beyond himself, and did see in prophetic vision that his son would also be his Lord.” Ibid, p. 298.

208 “…‘until’ is clearly not to be pressed as if it were equivalent to ‘only until, not afterwards.’” Perowne, II, p. 305.

209 Kidner observes, “The word used for rule has a certain sternness, which suits the contrast between the enforced obedience of enemies in this verse and the glad response of volunteers in the next. There is something of the same contrast in, e.g., Revelation 17:14.” Kidner, p. 394.

210 Perowne, II, p. 299.

211 Leupold, p. 776.

212 Perowne, II, p. 307.

213 Cf. Leupold, p. 776.

214 “He condescends for the sake of man to confirm His infallible word with an oath (e.g., Gen. 22:16, Ex. 32:13, Jer. 22:5, 49:13, 51:14, Amos 6:8, Heb. 6:13, where YHWH is said to swear by Himself; Psa. 89:35, Amos 4:2, where He is said to swear by His holiness; Isa. 62:8, where He is said to swear by His right hand; Jer. 44:26, where He is said to swear by His great Name; and Amos 8:7, where He is said to swear by the excellency of Jacob).” Jesse Boyd, “The Triumphant Priest-King,” Biblical Viewpoint, November, 1972, p. 106.

215 Perowne senses this problem when he writes, “The Psalm thus sinks down towards its close into—must we not say?—a lower key. The image which it presents to us is an image partly of fine gold, but partly of clay.” Perowne, II, p. 299.

216 “It has been said, that it is of importance for the right understanding of the Psalm, and especially of the fourth verse of the Psalm, to bear in mind the military character of the Hebrew priesthood. It is perhaps of more importance to bear in mind, that the whole nation was at once a nation of soldiers and a nation of priests. They were the soldiers of God pledged to a crusade, a holy war; pledged to the extermination of all idolatry and all wickedness, wherever existing. The character of the war marked the character of the soldiers. They were God’s ‘sanctified ones.’ They were set apart as priests for His service. That zeal for God should have manifested itself chiefly in the priesthood, and that they should not have hesitated to draw the sword, is readily accounted for by the fact that in them the ideal of the nation culminated: they were in every sense its representatives.” Perowne, II, p. 300.

217 There is considerable discussion as to who the “he” of verses 5 and 6 refers. Few seem to be dogmatic about their conclusions. It seems to me that it is not really very important, for Yahweh and Messiah are so closely associated in the work of judging the nations that it matters little which of the two is referred to. Both work hand-in-hand in this task of overcoming God’s foes.

218 “It has been said and repeated that the basic reality in human life was for the Israelite not the individual but the community. Within the nation the king was the representative of the whole. Mowinckel can even assert: ‘The covenant between Yahweh and Israel and between Yahweh and David is one and the same thing.’” Leopold Sabourin, The Psalms (New York: Alba House, 1974), p. 335.

15. Psalm 127: A Word for Workaholics

Introduction

Psalm 127 is one of the most practical passages in the Bible. It deals with two areas of our life that demand most of our time and cause us the most trouble. They are also the two areas which often compete with each other for our attention and energy. The two areas are those of our work and our family.

In our “workaholic” society Christian men often have misplaced priorities with respect to these responsibilities. The workaholic pursues his career at the expense of his family. He is often oblivious to the implications of his conduct. Minirth and Meier, two Christian psychiatrists, give us a picture of the workaholic’s true nature and its results:

“… the selfishness of the perfectionist (workaholic) is much more subtle. While he is out in society saving humanity at a work pace of eighty to a hundred hours a week, he is selfishly ignoring his wife and children. He is burying his emotions and working like a computerized robot. He helps mankind partially out of love and compassion, but mostly as an unconscious compensation for his insecurity, and as a means of fulfilling both his strong need for society’s approval and his driving urge to be perfect. He is self-critical and deep within himself feels inferior. He feels like a nobody, and spends the bulk of his life working at a frantic pace to prove to himself that he is really not (as he suspects deep within) a nobody. In his own eyes, and in the eyes of society, he is the epitome of human dedication. … He becomes angry when his wife and children place demands on him. He can’t understand how they could have the nerve to call such an unselfish, dedicated servant a selfish husband and father. … In reality, his wife and children are correct, and they are suffering severely because of his subtle selfishness.”219

I do not know of a father listening to me who does not agonize about his priorities in the areas of work and family. If there is such a person who isn’t concerned with them, he should be. Psalm 127 will instruct us how to correctly arrange our priorities in these most important responsibilities.

Work: When It Is Worthless (127:1-2)

1 A Song of Ascents, of Solomon. Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain. 2 It is vain for you to rise up early, To retire late, To eat the bread of painful labors; For He gives to His beloved even in his sleep. (NASB)

This Psalm has nothing to say about the need for work. Solomon, the author of this Psalm, is also a contributor of much of the wisdom of the Book of Proverbs. In Proverbs he has many words for the sluggard. The sluggard is described as one who avoids work as much as possible. He delays starting a task and seldom finishes the few things he starts. He always has an excuse for his indolence, no matter how contrived (“There’s a lion in the road …” Prov. 26:13). Solomon’s advice is simple: “Get to work!”

In Psalm 127 Solomon deals with the one who cannot seem to stop working. Here he addresses the workaholic, showing him the circumstances in which work is worthless because it is futile. We should understand that what we are considering is a very specialized study on the subject of work. It does not seek to say everything which could be said but speaks to the one who over-indulges in work, to the detriment of more important matters.

Verse 1 describes two instances in which work is vain or futile. Notice that neither endeavor is considered improper. Building houses and seeking to preserve the security of a city are both acceptable enterprises. But there is a time when either task can be futile. In each case our work is in vain when we engage in the activity alone, without God’s involvement.

Solomon begins by telling us that unless God builds our house, our efforts in building it are vain. Who would ever have thought God would stoop to house-building? Hasn’t He better things to do? And, after all, isn’t this something we can do for ourselves? It is simply a matter of making a plan, gathering materials, and putting them all together. Why does God need to be a part of house building?

The first answer is a general one. God makes no distinctions between what is sacred and what is secular. We are told in the New Testament, “And whatever you do, do it heartily as unto the Lord” (Col. 3:23). God is interested in every kind of work. There is no work from which we should exclude God. You may ask “Why does God care about house-building?” Let us think of what concerns God about houses.

God is concerned with how high a priority we place on our houses. For some people, having a house of their own is a goal which is absolutely consuming. The husband and wife may both work to earn the needed money. They may, in the process, neglect their marriage and their family. I know of numerous instances where striving for a lovely home has destroyed the marriage. God is not in any venture which is a reversal of biblical priorities. The Lord has a very clear word as to our priorities in this matter.

“Do not be anxious then, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘With what shall we clothe ourselves?’ For all these things the Gentiles eagerly seek; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you” (Matthew 6:31-33).

God also cares about our motives in building a house. A house is a symbol of status in our society. We want the best and biggest house we can buy in the “right” part of town. If our security is somehow intertwined with earthly possessions, then we are trusting in material things and not in God.

Now we can answer the question, “When is house-building vain?” House building is vain when we engage in it without God. And when does God not build our house with us? When we have the wrong priorities, the wrong motives, or the wrong methods. God cares about what we do, why we do it, and how we do it. God is concerned about the building of houses because so many of us are preoccupied with just such efforts. It may destroy us as a family; it may keep us from fellowshipping with God and our fellow-saints, and it may divert our energies from seeking His kingdom to building one of our own. Such misdirected or mismotivated effort is futile, for it seeks to trade off the eternal in preference for what is temporal. It is vain because our hearts are wrong before God. It is worthless because we are serving the wrong master.

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matthew 6:19-21).

Verse 1 also informs us that a watchman’s task to insure the security of a city can be vain. Security has always been a priority to men. In ancient times huge walls were built around cities. At various points along the wall were elevated towers. Watchmen were stationed there at all hours of the day and night. They prevented unwanted persons from entering into the city. They warned the people of the city of imminent attacks. Today we have security guards, watchdogs and sophisticated electronic devices, all designed to provide the same security sought by the ancients.

It is not as difficult to envision God as being concerned with our security as it is with our building of houses. After all, God cares about us and our well-being. But when is God not a part of our efforts to maintain security? I would say there are two principle occasions in biblical history when God removed Himself from the business of security. The first instance is when safety is sought in the midst of sin. The sinner is never secure in sin. The people of Babel sought their security in a city and in the building of a tower. However God had commanded men to disperse and to populate the earth (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,7). Sodom and Gomorrah were defenseless because God judges sin. We are most secure when we are obedient to the will of God (e.g. 2 Kings 6). Conversely, we are least secure when we persist in our sin.

Second, man is vulnerable when he strives for security in his own strength. Man’s safety is only in God. When our efforts to be secure distract us from our devotion to God, we have no protection. Lot chose Sodom and Gomorrah, I suspect, because he felt living there would give him security. He chose the best land and left the rest to Abraham. Lot was kidnapped, but Abraham rescued him. Lot lost everything, including his wife and his honor, but Abraham was exalted. The nation Israel sought to establish security by making alliances with other nations. They relied on the “arm of the flesh,” but security depends upon God alone (2 Chron. 32:7,8; Ps. 44:2-3; Isa. 51:5; Jer. 17:5). When we seek to be secure in our own efforts, it is an exercise of futility.

Verse 1 describes the futility of work which arises from improper motives and self-endeavor. Verse 2 seeks to show us another misuse of work. Work is vain whenever it goes beyond the limits God has set for it. Any labor is wrong when it is excessive. Work becomes vain when it is concerned with the wrong activity, so too, it becomes vain by going beyond reasonable limits of time. In Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 we are told that there is a time for everything. When our work totally consumes us we do not have time for other vitally important responsibilities.220 Too much work is counterproductive.

Verse 2 tells us that when our work causes us to get up very early and retire very late, it is vain. Now all of us know that occasionally it is necessary to “burn the midnight oil.” In fact in Proverbs 31 the virtuous woman is praised for doing this (verses 15,18). There she is commended for being hard-working, not slothful. Solomon is not contradicting Proverbs 31; he is putting this in perspective. While everyone finds occasions which require extra effort and longer time commitments, the workaholic is the man who has made this a pattern.

The last phrase of verse 2 explains the reason why extending our working day is wrong. I see two possible meanings, and while only one may be intended, it is also possible that both are taught simultaneously. The interpretation of this statement hinges on the translation we choose for the final clause of verse 2. The NIV renders it, “For he grants sleep to those he loves.” The NASB renders it, “For He gives to His beloved even in his sleep.”

Let’s consider first the sense of the passage as the translators of the NIV have understood it. The reason why the workaholic toils in vain is because he has failed to appreciate the delicate balance between the need for work and the necessity of rest. When you stop to think about it, work was a part of the curse pronounced upon Adam as a result of his sin.221 But from the very beginning God had established the principle of rest, even prior to the fall. God made the heavens and the earth in six days and in the seventh day He rested (Gen. 2:1-3). Later, when He gave the Law through Moses, God established the Sabbath as a day of rest (Deut. 5:12-15). I believe the Sabbath was intended to accomplish several things. First, it was a gracious provision for man to rest and recover. While work was a consequence of sin, God graciously put limits on man’s labor. Six days are sufficient toil (Deut. 5:13-14). Second, God established the Sabbath as a time for spiritual reflection and worship. Man needs time to worship God (cf. Deut. 5:12). Finally, the Sabbath was given as an opportunity for men to learn to trust God and strengthen their faith. Why was it that the Israelites found it so difficult to cease their labors on the Sabbath (cf. Neh. 13:15-18)? It was due either to greed or to unbelief. Greed made men discontent with the earnings of only six days. Wouldn’t working on the Sabbath increase profits? Unbelief also tempted men to work on the Sabbath. The farmer who had just cut his crop of grain feared that it might rain. “I can’t stop now,” he reasoned, “my crops may be ruined.” The Sabbath was a gracious provision for men, but they were tempted not to use it as God had directed.

The workaholic therefore chooses to capitalize on the curse and to avoid the blessings. The workaholic has lost his perspective on what is a necessary evil and what is a gracious good. By working day and night men cannot give diligent attention to more important matters such as study and meditation in the Scriptures, worship and devotion, and attention to family, the subject of the next three verses.

There is another way in which we may view the statement of verse 2. Prolonging our labor is vain because it violates a basic spiritual principle: God gives to those who have learned to rest in Him, not to those who strive in their own strength. In the words of the Psalmist as translated by the NASB, “For He gives to His beloved even in his sleep” (emphasis mine). Put in its simplest terms, the blessings of God are never gained by self-effort, no matter how fervent or how prolonged. God’s blessings are the product of His grace, appropriated by faith, not works. Work is futile when we strive, by means of it, to gain God’s blessings.

Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness (Romans 4:4-5).

God not only gives sleep to His children, He also gives to His children “in sleep,” that is when there is no toiling and striving, only resting in His goodness and faithfulness.

Children: An Illustration of God’s Gifts of Grace (127:3-5)

3 Behold, children are a gift of the LORD; The fruit of the womb is a reward. 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth. 5 How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They shall not be ashamed, When they speak with their enemies in the gate. (NASB)

Some scholars have suggested that this Psalm was originally two separate psalms. They propose this because the connection between verses 1 and 2 and verses 3-5 is an enigma to them. I personally am convinced that there is a very clear sequence and progression of thought. Children provide an excellent conclusion to the argument of verses 1 and 2. Children illustrate and apply positively the truths previously taught from a somewhat negative perspective. The provision of children differs from that for which men toil. When men work they are striving for wages, not a gift. Wages are what we produce with the work of our hands. Gifts are those things generously and graciously given to us by another. Children, verse 3 informs us, are a gift from God. They are a great reward.

Isn’t it interesting that children, while given by God, are conceived when we are at rest, not when we toil. Children are normally conceived in bed. What a beautiful illustration, then, of what we are told in verse 2, that God gives to His beloved in his sleep.

In verses 4 and 5 we are taught that children, a gift from God, provide us with the very thing for which men strive in vain. A man may toil to build a house, but by giving us children God builds our home. The watchman stands guard to provide security and protection, but the children God gives provide a greater security. Solomon poetically describes them as arrows in the hand of a warrior (v. 4). The children born in a man’s youth are strong and well established by the time he has reached old age. His quiver full of children will look after the aged man and his wife. The city gate (v. 5) was the place of business. It was also the place where justice was administered (cf. Gen. 19:1; 34:20-21; Deut. 17:5). The Scriptures assume that the widows and the orphans were more vulnerable and in need of greater protection since they had no one (but God) to safe-guard their interests (Ex. 22:22; Deut. 10:18; 14:29; Ps. 94:6; Isa. 1:23). The parents of many children had no such worry. Their children saw to it that their parents were treated with respect and with honesty and justice. Let their enemies try to take advantage of them!

Conclusion

Do you see the point of the Psalm? The man who puts too much stock in his labor is the man who has failed to understand the grace of God. In His grace God has provided man with a time of rest and relaxation. And in His grace God has made provision for many of our needs through the gift of children. Contrary to the thinking of the workaholic, God’s gifts are not acquired by feverish efforts, burning the candle at both ends, but by resting in His grace.

In my estimation this Psalm is the Old Testament counterpart of John 15:1-11. Jesus teaches us that the key to being fruitful is abiding in Him, not in frantic efforts. I do not mean to suggest that abiding in Christ precludes activity, but I do think it should govern our work. We need not strive to the point that God’s priorities are reversed. We dare not strive beyond the limits God has given. Our activity should leave room for important concerns, like raising children, and having time for rest, reflection, and worship.

We, sadly enough, have reversed our priorities from that given in this Psalm. Many have come to view children as a curse and work as the means of finding fulfillment and security. This is evident in the trend of the women’s movement. They are seeking to be released from the “slavery and drudgery of homemaking.” Instead, they are pursuing careers to find “fulfillment.” This is demonstrated by two observations: at worst, many women prefer abortions to relinquishing their occupations. At best, other women are willing for their children to be raised by institutions rather than to rear their own children at home.

Do you remember how it was with the first family, with Adam and Eve? Work was a part of the curse, and children were an essential part of the promise. How was Eve to be fulfilled as a woman and to play a role in the salvation of mankind? By having a child. It was through her seed that Satan would be crushed (Gen. 3:15).

Now I know full well that women today do not anticipate being the mother of Messiah, as women of old did. Nevertheless it still must be maintained that God’s grace is not to be seen in toil, but in the gift of children. Just as women of old anticipated the birth of the Savior to deliver them from the curse, so women today should regard childbearing as a gift of God to deliver them from the continuing effects of the curse (Gen. 3:16). Because of Eve’s sin, God has required women to remain silent in church meetings (1 Tim. 2:11-14). However, God has graciously provided women a voice in the assembly of believers through their children. The Lord’s gracious gift allows women to speak in church meetings through their children if “they” (the children) continue to reflect mature Christian character in accordance with the biblical instruction of their parents (1 Tim. 2:15).

Many may wonder about the implications of this psalm regarding birth control. I do not wish to be understood as saying more than I am. I am not here advocating that we should never practice birth control. I am suggesting that we should seriously evaluate our motives (and even our methods) for preventing children. In a previous series on Genesis it was noted in chapter 38 that Onan’s action of “spilling his seed on the ground” (v. 9) to prevent Tamar from conceiving was wrong because it was an “unnatural” action. He rejected a clear command to raise up a seed for his brother and he put his own financial interests first. Thus we can conclude that birth control is evil if it is motivated by selfish interests and if it is clearly an act of disobedience. Are we not having children to preserve our freedom? Is it that we don’t trust God to provide for our material and emotional needs? Psalm 127 emphasizes that “children are a gift of the Lord” (v. 3). Therefore, we should carefully evaluate our real reasons for birth control and place a high value on having children. Yet it is just as possible to want children for the wrong reasons as it is to wish to prevent their conception. We should test our motives by the principle: “whatever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). Methods of birth control which are abortive rather than preventative are clearly wrong. Beyond this, the Bible does not have a proof text for condemning or condoning birth control for everyone; it is a matter of personal conviction.

Do not misunderstand me with regard to the employment of women. I am not implying that a woman should never work. I am emphasizing that we must recognize the liabilities of labor and the benefits of rest. I am asserting that we should never allow our work to become the ruin of our family.

Incidentally, I feel that my emphasis may be misinterpreted. I am not speaking primarily to women. This Psalm was written by a man and primarily to men. Many of our wives are much more sensitive and much more concerned about this matter than their husbands. They know that we are allowing our jobs to rob them and our children of the time they need. They know that our work has crossed over the line of God’s limitations and has therefore become vain. If you really want to know if this is true or not, ask your wife.

Finally, this Psalm contains a principle which relates to those who may never have come to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. No matter how much you labor to earn a righteousness which you hope God will accept, your efforts will always be futile. Your works will never be acceptable to God. God has chosen to save men by His grace, not by their works. To be saved you must recognize yourself as a sinner, and your efforts to be righteous apart from God are worthless. You can be saved simply by resting in Him. He has sent His Son to be punished for your sins on Calvary. Jesus Christ is the One whose righteousness can be yours, simply by trusting in Him and receiving salvation as God’s gift of grace. In Him alone you will find the security which God gives for eternity.

220 It is interesting that following these verses having to do with a time for everything, the writer immediately proceeds to the subject of work in verses 9-11, and the vanity of excessive toil.

221 I am not saying that labor is only a curse. I believe that Adam had a work to do in the garden before the fall. I do not think that heaven is a place of inactivity. But the toil of our task is to be related to the fall. That is the force of God’s words in Genesis 3:17-19.